IRLF 


MEISTER  ECKEHART 


BY 

SISTER  ODILIA  FUNKE,  A.  M. 

OF  THE 

SISTERS  OF  NOTRE  DAME  OF  NAMUR,  BELGIUM 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Philosophy  of  the  Catholic  University 

of  America  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the  Requirements 

for  the  Degree  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 
JUNE,  1916 


NATIONAL  CAPITAL  PRESS,  INC.,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


. 


The  writer  wishes  to  make  grateful  acknowledgment  to 
Eev.  Nicholas  A.  Weber,  S.T.D.,  Eev.  William  Turner, 
S.T.D.,  Eev.  Charles  A.  Dubray,  Ph.D.,  for  their  kind 
assistance  given  in  the  preparation  of  this  dissertation; 
to  the  Eev.  Paulist  Fathers  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  for 
rendering  their  library  available,  especially  those  original 
works  without  which  this  dissertation  could  not  have  been 
written ;  and  to  other  friends  who  have  been  generous  in 
encouragement  and  advice. 


307670 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction  .........................................       7 

CHAPTER    I 

The  Life  of  Meister  Eckehart  .........................     11 

CHAPTER    II 

Meister  Eckehart  and  the  Inquisition  ..................     24 

CHAPTER    III 

The  Works  of  Meister  Eckehart  ........................     31 

CHAPTER    IV 

The  Nature,  Unity,  and  Trinity  of  God  ..................     42 

CHAPTER     V 

The  Creation   ........................................     55 

CHAPTER    VI 

Sin  and  the  Kedemption  ...............................     67 

CHAPTER    VII 

Virtue  and  Good  Works  ............................  *  .  .     79 

CHAPTER    VIII 

The  Soul   ............................................     84 

CHAPTER    IX 

The  Mystic  Union  or  the  Divine  Birth  in  the  Soul  ........     93 

CHAPTER    X 

Conclusion    ..........................................    108 


The  Condemned  Propositions 

Bibliography    .................................  ,  115 


INTRODUCTION 

Perhaps  no  era  in  the  history  of  the  latter  Middle  Ages 
offers  so  many  and  such  various  problems  as  that  extend- 
ing from  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  to  the  middle  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  from  1250  to  1350.  It  was  a  time  of 
great  politico-religious  unrest  for  the  greater  part  of 
Europe,  but  especially  for  the  Holy  Eoman  Empire.  The 
struggles  between  the  Empire  and  the  Papacy,  which 
resulted  in  almost  continual  wars  and  interdicts,  were 
followed  in  Germany  by  the  Great  Interregnum,  the  dark- 
est period  of  her  history.  The  Interregnum  was  in  reality 
an  age  of  lawlessness  and  universal  anarchy.  "  Might 
over  right, ' '  or,  as  it  was  then  termed,  the  ' '  Faustrecht ' ', 
became  the  ruling  principle. 

The  ascension  of  Eudolf  of  Hapsburg  to  the  imperial 
throne  brought  a  period  of  comparative  peace  to  the 
afflicted  states,  when  in  1313  another  double  election  set 
up  as  rival  kings  Frederick  the  Fair  and  Louis  the 
Bavarian.  Both  were  crowned:  Frederick  at  the  wrong 
place,  Bonn,  but  by  the  right  person,  the  Archbishop  of 
Cologne ;  Louis  at  the  right  place,  Aix  la  Chapelle,  but 
by  the  wrong  person,  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz.  Eenewed 
civil  war,  renewed  struggle  between  the  Empire  and  the 
Papacy,  is  the  sad  record  of  the  next  thirty  years.  Ex- 
communication and  interdict  followed  in  their  train ;  these 
latter  often  weighed  heavier  upon  the  people  than  even 
the  stress  of  war.  Infants  remained  without  baptism, 
Mass  was  not  celebrated,  the  sacred  offices  for  the  dead 
ceased,  and  in  some  cities  priests  were  forced  to  continue 
their  functions  in  spite  of  the  interdict  or  go  into 
banishment. 

The  long  conflict  between  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor 
and  the  prevailing  lawlessness  of  the  Interregnum  were 
not  without  their  influence  on  the  clergy.  We  have  but  to 
turn  to  the  history  of  the  councils  and  synods  of  those 


8  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

days,  and  everywhere  we  see  how  the  Church  fought 
against  luxury,  immorality,  and  avarice  among  the  clergy. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  licentiousness  was 
the  source  of  many  degrading  vices.  Numbers  of  ecclesi- 
astics, although  they  were  continually  reminded  of  their 
obligation  to  observe  the  law  of  celibacy  and  to  preserve 
in  their  person  a  dignity  becoming  their  state,  continued 
to  be  in  a  large  measure,  the  slaves  of  their  passions, 
worldly  minded,  lovers  of  pleasure,  avaricious,  and 
simoniacal.1  The  bestowal  of  several  benefices  on  the 
same  person  or  on  unworthy  candidates,  sometimes  even 
on  young  children,  was  followed  by  most  baneful  results. 

This  sad  picture,  however,  is  not  without  its  bright  side. 
There  were  many  ecclesiastics  distinguished  for  eminent 
virtues  to  whose  efforts  and  influence  may  be  traced  many 
institutions  worthy  of  the  undying  gratitude  of  mankind.3 
It  was  at  this  period,  too,  that  the  mendicant  orders,  the 
Franciscans  and  the  Dominicans,  foremost  in  their  devo- 
tion to  the  religious  instruction  of  the  people,  exercised  a 
powerful  influence  for  good  on  the  masses.  The  people, 
perplexed  by  never-ending  conflicts  and  longing,  in 
general,  for  religious  guides,  flocked  to  the  Friars  to 
nourish  themselves  with  the  word  of  God. 

Everywhere  the  evils  of  the  time  caused  more  serious 
natures  to  turn  with  an  intense  longing  toward  nobler 
ideals,  toward  a  deeper  Christian  spirit,  toward  some 
higher  principle  which  might  direct  them,  even  in  the 
midst  of  daily  turmoil,  in  their  efforts  to  keep  alive 
an  interior  life,  to  concentrate  themselves  more  on 
their  spiritual  needs  and  thus  produce  a  truer  spirit 
of  piety  and  a  stricter  morality.  Many  renounced 
the  world  to  dedicate  themselves  to  God  in  the  religious 
life.  The  convents  in  particular  became  so  many 
centers  of  mysticism  whose  inmates,  especially  the 

JCf.  Michael,  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Volkes  II,  p.  15  ff.     Freiburg, 
1899;  also  Hefele,  Konziliengeschichte  II.    Freiburg,  1890. 

2Alzog,  J.,  Manual  of  Church  History  II,  p.  649.    Cincinnati,  1902. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  9 

nuns,  zealously  gave  themselves  up  to  a  life  of  con- 
templation. Among  many  others  mention  must  be  made 
of  the  Dominican  nuns  of  Adelhausen  near  Freiburg  in 
Breisgau;  of  Unterlinden  near  Colmar;  of  Schonstein- 
bach  in  Alsace ;  of  Toss,  Diessenhof en,  and  Of tenbach  in 
Switzerland ;  of  Engelthal  in  Franconia ;  to  these  must  be 
added  the  Cistercian  nuns  of  Helfta,  among  whom  were 
the  famous  abbess,  Gertrude  of  Hackeborn,3  with  her 
sister,  St.  Mechtilde,  and  St.  Gertrude ;  also  the  Beguines, 
Mechtilde  of  Magdeburg,  noted  for  her  mystic  work, 
"Das  fliessende  Licht  der  Gottheit",  Luitgard  of  Ba- 
varia, and  Christina  of  Stommeln.4  Thus,  while  the  Fran- 
ciscans, Berchtold  of  Eegensburg  and  David  of  Augs- 
burg, preached  to  the  masses  who  suffered  so  severely 
under  the  repeated  interdicts,  the  nuns  enjoyed  in  the 
solitude  of  the  cloister  frequent 'mystic  communings  with 
their  God.  It  was  in  the  Ehineland,  however,  that  relig- 
ious experiences  were  more  intense  and  manifold,  and 
that  the  greatest  numbers  of  devout  souls  were  found  who 
aspired  to  an  entire  purification  of  the  heart,  and  to  union 
with  God;  and  who,  therefore,  submitted  voluntarily  to 
the  sharpest  austerities,  to  poverty  and  humility,  to  anni- 
hilation of  pride  and  self-will,  as  a  means  of  approaching 
nearer  to  God. 

The  Golden  Age  of  scholasticism  was  rapidly  declining, 
when  there  grew  up  on  German  soil  a  particular  branch 
of  mysticism,  which  has,  even  down  to  recent  times,  ex- 
erted an  influence  on  German  thought  and  poetry.  This 
German  mysticism  was  developed  chiefly  by  means  of 
sermons.  The  perfecter,  if  not  also  the  author,  of  this 
development,  was  Meister  Eckehart,  a  Dominican  monk, 
who  drew  his  matter  largely  from  the  doctrines  of  earlier 
writers,  particularly  from  the  Pseudo-Areopagite  and  St. 
Augustine,  as  well  as  from  the  best  theologians  of  the 


3This  Gertrude  is  often  mistaken  for  St.  Gertrude,  who  is  sometimes 
called  the  Great. 

'Michael,  op.  cit,  pp.  164-211. 


10  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

Middle  Ages,  equally  renowned  as  scholastics  and 
as  mystics.  Foremost  among  these  latter  were  St.  Ber- 
nard, the  Victorines,  St.  Bonaventure,  Albertus  Magnus, 
and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.5  These  names  are  continually 
encountered  up  and  down  the  pages  of  Meister  Eckehart. 
In  fact,  it  was  more  especially  the  Victorines  who  paved 
the  way  for  the  mysticism  of  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth 
centuries.  Although  Eckehart 's  principal  aim  in  his  ser- 
mons and  treatises  was  to  edify  and  arouse  the  people, 
there  is  no  trace  in  his  works  of  the  fanatical  zeal  of  the 
reformer  pointing  the  finger  of  scorn  at  the  moral  ills 
of  the  day.  He  does  not  so  much  ignore  these  evils,  as  he 
rises  above  them  like  one  animated  by  a  purely  theoretical 
interest.6 

The  school  of  Eckehart  produced  in  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury some  of  the  brightest  clusters  of  names  in  the  history 
of  mysticism.  In  Euysbroek,  Bl.  Henry  Suso,  Tauler, 
and  the  unknown  author  of  the  Theologia  Germanica  in- 
trospective mysticism  is  seen  at  its  best.  This  must  not 
be  understood  to  mean  that  they  improved  upon  the 
philosophical  system  of  Eckehart,  or  that  they  are  en- 
tirely free  from  the  dangerous  tendencies  which  have 
been  found  in  his  works.  On  the  speculative  side  they  add 
nothing  of  value,  and  none  of  them  rivals  Eckehart  in 
depth  of  intellect.  But  there  is  in  their  works  an  unfalter- 
ing conviction  that  communion  with  God  must  be  a  fact 
of  experience  and  not  only  a  philosophical  theory-7 

5Hergenrother,  Kirchengeschichte   II,  p.  497.    Freiburg,  1904. 
"tiberweg,  History  of  Philosophy  I,  p.  469.     New  York,  1901. 
7W.  R.  Inge,  Christian  Mysticism,  p.  167.     New  York,  1899. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  LIFE  OF  MEISTER  ECKEHABT 

The  attempt  to  gather  the  necessary  data  for  the  biog- 
raphy of  any  of  the  great  mystics  is  rendered  more  than 
usually  difficult  by  the  reticence  of  the  mystics  them- 
selves, who,  though  ready  enough  to  reveal  their  spiritual 
experiences  in  their  works,  are  exceedingly  reserved  as 
to  the  facts  of  their  private  lives.  In  fact,  one  of  their 
principal  aims  is  to  be  unknown  and  forgotten.  The 
difficulty  is  still  greater  if  the  mystic  is  a  member  of  some 
religious  order.  Although  the  outward  life  of  the  relig- 
ious is  regulated  in  almost  every  detail  by  the  rules  and 
constitutions,  yet  the  rich  inner  life  can  often  be  learned 
only  from  his  writings  and  we  know  but  too  well  that 
such  conjectures  are  always  more  or  less  subjective. 
These  facts  account  no  doubt  for  the  little  we  know  of 
Meister  Eckehart  V  life  and  for  much  of  the  uncertainty 
concerning  even  that  little. 

The  early  life  of  Eckehart  is  so  shrouded  in  mystery 
that  not  even  the  time  of  his  birth  is  exactly  known.  It  is, 
however,  generally  admitted  that  he  was  born  about  the 
year  1260.  The  place  of  his  birth  remained  long  an  open 
question;  some,  like  Preger  and  Quetif-Echard,  sought 
it  in  Thuringia,  others  with  Jundt  in  Strasburg.  This 
problem  has  been  definitely  settled  by  the  great  Domini- 
can savant,  Henry  Seuse  Denifle,  whose  learned  re- 
searches2 prove  that  Eckehart  was  a  Thuringian. 

In  the  first  place,  Denifle  cites  the  manuscript  of  the 
Amploniana  of  Erfurt,  F.  36,  on  the  reverse  side  of  whose 
second  fly-leaf  is  a  Latin  sermon  of  Meister  Eckehart 
which  concludes  with  the  following  information:  "This 

'This  method  of  spelling  Eckehart  has  been  adopted  after  the  ex- 
ample of  Denifle  and  Biittner  as  the  older  and  more  correct  form.  The 
dissyllabic  Eckhart  was  introduced  with  the  printed  edition  of  Tauler's 
sermons  and  has  since  been  followed  by  many  writers. 

2Archiv  fur  Literatur-und  Kirchengeschichte  des  Mittelalters  V,  p. 
351.  Berlin,  1888. 

11 


12  MEISTEB  ECKEHART 

sermon  was  delivered  by  Meister  Eckehart  de  Hochheim 
of  Paris  on  the  feast  of  Blessed  Augustine.'"  To  judge 
by  its  character,  the  manuscript  must  belong  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fourteenth  century,  whereas  its  inner  evidence, 
such  as  the  manner  of  treating  scriptural  texts  and  its 
relation  to  St.  Thomas,  all  point  to  Eckehart 's  earlier 
years.  Hence  the  manuscript  gains  in  importance  as  a 
contemporaneous,  and,  therefore,  highly  valued,  docu- 
ment. According  to  authentic  evidence  there  was  only 
one  Meister  Eckehart  in  Paris  at  the  beginning  of  the 
fourteenth  century  and  he  must  have  been  born  either  in  a 
place  called  Hochheim  or  of  a  family  of  the  same  name. 
It  was,  moreover,  customary  in  the  Middle  Ages,  to  add 
to  the  person's  name  that  of  the  city  or  at  least  of  the 
diocese  in  which  he  was  born.  Furthermore,  Denifle 
discovered  in  the  convent  of  the  Holy  Cross  belong- 
ing to  the  Cistercian  nuns  at  Gotha  an  old  document 
dated  May  19,  1305,  in  which  mention  is  made  of  a 
deceased  "Sir  Eckardus,  Knight,  known  as  de  Hoch- 
heim, "4  a  benefactor,  who  had  donated  a  tract  of  land  on 
condition  that  the  nuns  pray  for  the  repose  of  his  soul 
and  that  of  his  consort.  This  document  goes  to  prove 
that  a  family  of  the  name  of  Hochheim  probably  dwelt  or 
at  least  possessed  some  property  near  Gotha ;  there  is  at 
present  a  village  of  Hochheim  a  few  miles  north  of  Gotha. 
The  titles  dominus  and  miles  show  that  this  Eckehart  of 
Hochheim  belonged  to  a  knightly  family- 

Another  fact  worthy  of  notice  is  that  the  document  in 
question  bears,  besides  the  convent  seal,  a  second  one 
which  is  that  of  Meister  Eckehart.  The  deed  concludes 
with  the  following  words:  "In  proof  whereof  and  for  a 
more  complete  memorial  of  our  venerable  Father,  Meister 
Eckehart  of  Paris,  Provincial  of  the  Friar  Preachers  for 
the  Province  of  Saxony,  we  have  caused  this  deed  to  be 


8Iste  sermo  sic  est  reportatus  ab  ore  magistri  Echardi  de  Hochheim 
die  beati  Augustini  Parisius. 

*Dominus  Eckardus  miles  dictus  de  Hochheim. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  13 

the  better  authenticated  by  affixing  thereto  the  seals  of 
our  convent."5  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  Meister 
Eckehart  is  the  same  as  the  subject  of  this  biography. 
The  only  possible  reason  why  Eckehart 's  name  should 
appear  in  the  document  would  be  his  close  relationship  to 
the  deceased ;  it  is  quite  probable  that  he  was  his  son  and, 
therefore,  signed  the  deed  as  the  representative  of  the 
family. 

Eckehart 's  childhood  and  youth  were  lived  at  a  time 
when  Albertus  Magnus  and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  had 
reached  the  summit  of  their  power  and  fame,  and  when 
the  Order  of  Preachers  had  entered  on  its  most  brilliant 
epoch.  Is  it  surprising  then  that  the  order  with  its  great 
aims  exerted  so  powerful  an  influence  on  the  youthful 
heart  and  mind  of  Eckehart?  We  do  not  know  at  what 
age  he  resolved  to  dedicate  himself  to  God  in  the  Order 
of  St.  Dominic,  but  according  to  the  constitution  of  the; 
Order  he  must  have  completed  his  fifteenth  year.  It  was 
likewise  customary  to  enter  the  monastery  nearest  one's 
native  place,  which,  in  the  case  of  Eckehart,  was  that  of 
Erfurt. 

He  had  now  to  pursue  the  regular  course  laid  down  by 
the  statutes  of  the  General  Chapters  which  ordained  that 
the  young  novice  begin  his  regular  studies  only  after  his 
second  year  in  the  monastery.  The  Studium  logicale  or 
the  trii'ium,  grammar,  rhetoric,  and  dialectics,  formed  a 
three  years '  course ;  after  this  two  more  years  were  de- 
voted to  the  Studium  naturals  or  the  quadrivium,  arith- 
metic, mathematics,  astronomy,  and  music.  These  studies 
served  as  prerequisites  for  that  of  sacred  theology  to 
which  they  led.  The  first  year  of  theology  embraced  the 
Studium  biblicum,  and  the  next  two  the  study  of  the  Sen- 
tences or  Dogma.  For  this  latter  the  German  province 


5In  cuius  rei  fidem  et  memoriam  ampliorem  venerabilis  patris  mag- 
istri  Eckardi  Parisiensis,  provincialis  fratrum  ordinis  Predicatorum  per 
provinciain  Saxonie  et  nostri  conventus  sigillorum  appensione  hanc 
literam  fecimus  firmiter  communiri.  Datum  anno  Domini  MCCCV 
XIII.  kl.  Junii. 


14  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

had  at  that  time  probably  but  one  school  which,  it  is 
thought,  was  at  Strasburg.  After  their  course  in  theol- 
ogy the  students  were  promoted  to  the  sacred  priesthood. 
The  more  promising  of  these  young  Levites  were  sent 
after  their  ordination  to  what  might  be  called  the  "high 
school"  or  Studium  generate  of  the  order.  At  this  period 
the  Dominicans  had  five  such  schools,  the  most  renowned 
of  them  being  that  of  St.  James  at  Paris,  while  Cologne 
ranked  next.  The  course  of  instruction  lasted  three 
years.  Although  the  system  of  Peter  Lombard  still  domi- 
nated in  the  schools,  nevertheless  at  Cologne  the  spirit  of 
Albertus  Magnus  and  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  who  had 
taught  there  for  several  years,  was  still  felt.  In  fact, 
Eckehart 's  first  mystic  work,  "Rede  der  Unterschei- 
dunge,"  shows  the  influence  and  recalls  in  many  ways 
Albert's  "De  adhaerendo  Deo". 

The  Dominican  regulations  forbade  anyone  to  be 
chosen  prior  who  had  not  been  lector  for  at  least  three 
years.  Where  Eckehart  exercised  this  latter  office  is  not 
known.  One  of  the  earliest  documentary  references  to 
Eekehart  is  the  title  of  a  treatise  known  as  the  ' '  Eede  der 
Unterscheidunge":6  "These  are  the  conferences  on  dis- 
cernment, which  the  Vicar  of  Thuringia,  the  Prior  of 
Erfurt,  Brother  Eckehart  of  the  Order  of  Preachers,  gave 
to  those  of  his  children  who  asked  him  many  questions 
in  these  conferences,  as  they  sat  together  for  collation."7 
It  is  an  open  question  as  to  when  Eckehart  held  the  two- 
fold office  of  vicar  and  prior.  All  we  know  is  that  it  must 
have  been  previous  to  1298,  for  the  General  Chapter  of 
that  year  ordained  that  in  future  both  offices  might  not  be 
filled  simultaneously  by  the  same  person.  Preger8  asserts 
that  Eckehart  had  been  lector  for  three  years  before  he 

'Pfeiffer,  Deutsche  Mystiker  II,  p.  543.     Leipzig,  1857. 

7Daz  sint  die  rede  der  unterscheidunge,  die  der  Vicarius  von 
Duringen,  der  Prior  von  Erfort,  bruoder  Eckehart  predier  ordens  mit 
solichen  kinden  hete,  diu  in  dirre  rede  frageten  vil  dinges,  do  sie 
sazen  in  collationibus  mit  einander. 

8Preger,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Mystik  im  Mittelalter  I  p  328 
Leipzig,  1874. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  15 

was  nominated  prior.  We  have,  however,  no  certainty 
in  this  matter,  as  it  was  not  until  1291  that  the  Order 
laid  down  the  new  regulation,  that  no  one  who  had  not 
been  lector  for  three  years  could  hold  the  office  of  prior, 
and  it  is  not  known  whether  it  was  before  or  after  this 
new  decree  that  Eckehart  was  elected  prior  of  Erfurt. 

If  we  know  but  little  of  Eckehart 's  exterior  labors 
during  the  period  when  he  was  Prior  and  Vicar  in  Thur- 
ingia,  we  have  in  the  ' i  Conferences ' '  a  rich  source  of  in- 
formation regarding  his  inner  life  and  his  activity  as  a 
teacher.  It  was  customary  for  the  monks  during  collation 
to  question  the  Prior  on  various  topics  pertaining  to 
Christian  and  religious  life.  In  his  answers  to  his  spirit- 
ual children  Eckehart  quite  unconsciously  and  simply 
betrays  his  deepest  aspirations,  the  hidden  springs  of 
his  activity.  A  few  extracts  chosen  at  random  will  suffice 
to  prove  this.  Speaking  of  true  obedience  he  lays  down 
the  great  principle  of  St.  Francis  de  Sales,  "Ask  nothing 
and  refuse  nothing, ' '  as  follows :  "  '  I  want  this  or  that '  is 
never  found  in  true  obedience;  for  true  obedience  is  a 
forgetfulness  of  self;  therefore,  the  best  prayer  that  one 
can  make  is  not,  '  0  Lord,  give  me  this  virtue  or  that, '  but 
rather,  '0  Lord,  give  me  only  what  Thou  wishest  and 
do  with  me  whatever  Thou  wilt. '  '9  Everywhere  through- 
out the  Conferences,  no  matter  what  the  question  pro- 
posed, the  keynote  is  always  complete  submission  to  God's 
will  in  all  things,  great  or  small,  often  embodying,  as  it 
does,  great  self-renunciation  even  to  death  of  self.  "Ver- 
ily if  a  person  gave  up  a  kingdom  or  the  whole  world  and 
did  not  renounce  himself,  he  gave  up  nothing."10  "Adhere 
to  God  and  God  and  all  virtues  will  adhere  to  you."11  How 
this  is  to  be  accomplished  the  following  passage  explains : 
"A  man  cannot  learn  this  by  either  flying  from  or  avoid- 
ing things  and  then  entering  into  exterior  solitude  into 


•Pfeiffer,  544,  10. 
"Pfeiffer,  545,  59. 
"Pfeiffer,  547,  7. 


16  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

which  he  always  can  enter,  no  matter  where  or  with  whom 
)he  may  be."12  "The  will  is  entire  and  right,  when  it  is 
without  any  properties,  when  it  has  renounced  itself,  and 
has  formed  and  moulded  itself  on  that  of  God.  "13  "  Many 
say,  we  have  a  good  will,  but  they  have  not  God's  will; 
they  want  their  will  and  want  to  teach  Our  Lord  what  to 
do."14  "We  must  learn  to  leave  ourselves  until  nothing 
of  self  remains."15  "Whatever  God  shall  send,  we  must 
take  it  as  coming  directly  from  Him,  as  best  for  us,  and 
after  that  remain  in  peace."16  "Do  not  place  sanctity  in 
doing,  but  in  being.  Works  do  not  sanctify  us,  we  ought 
rather  to  sanctify  them."17  A  clear  insight  into  the  hu- 
man heart  is  betrayed  by  the  following:  "And  thus  it 
may  prove  at  times  more  troublesome  to  suppress  a  word 
than  to  refrain  from  all  conversation.  And  thus  it  is  far 
harder  to  bear  a  little  contemptuous  word,  which  is  really 
nothing  in  itself,  than  a  big  blow  to  which  one  has  exposed 
oneself;  and  one  often  finds  it  more  difficult  to  be  recol- 
lected amongst  men  than  to  live  in  solitude,  and  frequently 
it  costs  more  to  give  up  a  trifle  than  something  important, 
and  to  practise  some  little  act  than  to  accomplish  a  deed 
considered  very  great."18 

The  next  definite  and  reliable  information  still  extant 
regarding  Meister  Eckehart  pertains  to  his  first  sojourn 
at  Paris.  A  treatise  of  Stephen  de  Salahanco,  "The 
Four  Brethren  through  whom  God  distinguished  the 
Order  of  Preachers,"  of  which  we  possess  at  present 
only  a  revision  by  Bernard  Guidonis,  recounts  in  the  third 
part,  "concerning  illustrious  members,"  eighty-eight 
Dominicans  who  received  the  Doctorate  in  Paris.  As 
Denifle  proves,19  this  roll  beginning  with  the  thirty-second 

12Pfeiffer,  549,  17. 
13Pfeiffer,  553,  7. 
14Pfeiffer,  555,  1. 
3SPfeiffer,  571,  14. 
16Pfeiffer,  572,  3. 
"Pfeiffer,  546,  22. 
18Pfeiffer,  562,  39. 

"Denifle,     Quellen     zur    Gelehrtengeschichte    des    Predigerordens 
Archiv  II,  p.  183.     Berlin,  1886. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  17 

57- 

name  was  continued  by  Bernard  Guidonis.  The  fifty- 
second  is  "  Brother  Eckehart,  a  German,  was  created 
Master  A.  D.  1302.  He  was  confirmed  as  provincial  prior 
of  Saxony  in  the  General  Chapter  of  Toulouse  A.  D. 
1304.  "20  This  document  proves  first  that  Eckehart  re- 
ceived the  title  of  Master  in  Paris  A.  D.  1302,  and  sec- 
ondly, that  two  years  later  the  General  Chapter  of  the 
Order  of  Toulouse  confirmed  his  election  as  the  first 
provincial  of  the  Province  of  Saxony.  According  to  Pum- 
merer21  all  other  accounts  that  Preger  gives  of  Meister 
Eckehart 's  first  stay  in  Paris  are  mere  conjectures. 
Owing  to  the  conflict  between  Boniface  VIII  and  the  Uni- 
versity of  Paris,  it  was  not  the  Pope  but  the  Faculty  of 
the  University  that  conferred  the  Doctorate  on  Eckehart, 
not  because  he  was  opposed  to  Boniface,  but  because,  be- 
ing a  foreigner,  he  occupied  a  neutral  position.  It  is 
morally  certain  that  if  Eckehart  had  shown  the  least 
hostility  to  the  Papacy,  the  Order  would  never  have 
nominated  him  to  the  high  post  of  provincial. 

Before  Meister  Eckehart,  as  he  was  now  styled,  could 
enter  upon  his  third  year  of  teaching,  he  was  recalled  to 
Germany ,  where  the  extraordinary  expansion  of  the 
Dominicans  rendered  a  division  of  the  Order  necessary. 
That  he  must  have  shown  himself  worthy  of  the  trust 
placed  in  him,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  first  provin- 
cial chapter  held  that  same  year  1303,  elected  him  its 
first  Provincial  Prior;  he  was  re-elected  in  1307  at  the 
Chapter  of  Minden. 

It  was  during  Eckehart 's  first  term  of  office  that  the 
General  Chapter  held  at  Paris  in  1306  lodged  certain 
complaints  against  the  Provincials  of  Germany  and  Sax- 
ony on  account  of  some  irregularities  among  the  ter- 


20Frater  Aychardus,  Theutonicus,  fuit  licenciatus  anno  domini 
MCCCII0.  Hie  fuit  confirmatus  in  priorem  provincialem  Saxonie  in 
general!  capitulo  tholosano  anno  dom.  MCCCIIII0. 

21Pummerer,  Der  gegenwartige  Stand  der  Eckehartforschung. 
Jahresbericht  des  offentlichen  Privatgymnasiums  an  der  Stella  Matutina 
zu  Feldkirch.,  1903,  p.  12. 


18  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

tiaries.  Both  were  given  directions  to  remove  these  dis- 
orders before  the  feast  of  the  Purification  A.  D.  1307,  or 
to  fast  two  days  each  week  until  this  duty  was  accom- 
plished. Preger  surmises  there  was  question  of  heresy 
among  the  tertiaries,  and  adds:  "We  know  that  the  ter- 
tiaries  of  the  Mendicant  Orders  were  sometimes  during 
this  period  designated  as  Beghards  and  Beguines  whom 
they  resembled.  Among  the  Beghards,  the  Brethren  of 
the  Free  Spirit  had  a  great  following  and  the  tertiaries 
themselves  were  infected  by  their  doctrines."22  Preger 
then  concludes  that  Eckehart  secretly  sympathized  with 
the  heretics  and  therefore  took  no  steps  to  prevent  the 
disorder.  But  if  such  had  really  been  the  case,  it  is 
hardly  conceivable  that  Eckehart  should  have  been  re- 
elected  provincial  and  above  all  been  deputed  by  Aymer- 
ich  de  Placentia  in  the  General  Chapter  of  Strasburg  as 
his  Vicar-General  to  Bohemia  with  extensive  powers  to 
reform  the  several  relaxed  monasteries  of  that  country. 
As  Eckehart  held  at  the  same  time  the  office  of  Provincial 
of  Saxony,  this  mission  to  Bohemia  was  evidently  of  brief 
duration. 

At  the  expiration  of  his  second  term  as  provincial  he 
was  sent  by  the  General,  Aymerich  de  Placentia,  as  lec- 
turer to  Paris.23  Here  he  resumed  his  lectures  on  the 
Sentences.  Of  this  period  nothing  certain  is  known. 
That  he  spent  a  longer  or  a  shorter  time  in  Strasburg  as 
professor  of  sacred  theology  is  evidenced  by  the  Register 
of  the  City  of  Strasburg  (III.  236)  where  we  find  the 
entry:  1314  Magister  Eckehardus  professor  sacre  the- 
ologie.  He  was  also  appointed  ordinary  preacher  and 
many  of  his  sermons  of  those  days  are  still  extant.  The 
Latin  sermons  he  addressed  to  his  religious  brethren 
either  in  the  monastery  or  at  chapters  of  the  Order.  Sev- 
eral convents  of  nuns  and  some  Beguinages  were  placed 

"Preger,  op.  cit.,  p.  338. 

23Fuit  absolutus  apud  Neapolim  anno  Domini  MCCCXI,  et  missus 
Parisius  ad  legendum.  Martene-Durand,  Veterum  SS.  coll.  VI,  343.  Cf 
Archiv  V,  p.  349. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  19 

under  his  spiritual  direction;  to  them  as  well  as  to  the 
people,  who  flocked  to  the  churches,  he  preached  in  the 
vernacular. 

Preger  says  that  Eckehart  was  transferred  to  Frank- 
fort some  time  after  1317.24  He  bases  his  statement  on  a 
letter  of  the  General  Herveus25  to  the  Priors  of  Worms 
and  Mainz,  in  which  he  directs  them  to  investigate  certain 
facts  that  reached  him  regarding  Eckehart,  the  Prior  of 
Frankfort,  and  Theodoric  of  St.  Martin.  They  were 
accused  of  holding  familiar  intercourse  with  evil  per- 
sons— mails  familiaritatibus.  Preger  asserts  that  ac- 
cording to  the  constitutions  of  the  Order  mala  famili- 
aritas signifies  those  suspected  of  heresy,  that  is  the 
heretical  Beghards  and  Beguines  so  numerous  in  those 
days.  Denifle  proves  the  utter  falsity  of  these  assertions. 
His  facts  are  drawn  from  the  same  document  which 
Preger  has  so  entirely  misconstrued.  Let  us  listen  to  the 
learned  Dominican:  "A  proof  that  Eckehart  was  guilty 
of  familiar  intercourse  with  heretics,  was  supposed  to  be 
found  in  a  letter  of  the  General  Herveus  to  the  Priors  of 
Worms  and  Mainz.  .  .  .  What  was  it  customary  in 
the  Order  to  denote  by  mala  familiaritas^  Perhaps  inter- 
course or  friendship  with  heretics?  Anything  but  this; 
it  was  rather  evil,  scandalous  relations  with  women. 
.  .  .  The  technical  term  mala  familiaritas  was  substi- 
tuted in  the  year  1264  or  1266  for  the  older  expression 
suspecta  familiaritas  mulieris  and  is  identical  with  it. 
Granted  that  Meister  Eckehart  was  the  Prior  of  Frank- 
fort, the  aforesaid  letter  of  Herveus  would  still  supply  no 

24Preger,  op.  cit,  p.  352.  Ch.  Schmidt  makes  the  same  statement  in 
Etudes  sur  le  mysticisme  allemand  au  XIV  siecle.  (Memoires  de 
1' Academic  des  sciences  morales  et  politiques  II,  p.  238.)  The  same 
statement  is  repeated  by  A.  L.  McMahon  in  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia 
V,  p.  274. 

25Habui  etiam  delationes  graves  de  fratre  Ekardo  nostro  priore  apud 
Frankefort,  et  de  fratre  Theodorico  de  sancto  Martino,  de  malis 
familiaritatibus  et  suspectis,  et  idcirco  de  ipsis  duobus  signanter 
inquiratis  sollicite,  et  secundum  quod  invenerits  eos  culpabiles, 
puniatis  et  corrigatis,  sicut  iudicaveritis  expedire  ordinis  honestati 
Archiv  II,  p.  618. 


20  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

evidence  whatever  for  the  assumption  that  Eckehart  held 
any  intercourse  with  heretics,  as  absolutely  nothing  of 
the  kind  occurs  in  the  above  writing.  The  accusation,  as 
we  have  seen,  refers  to  unlawful  relations  with  women. 

"But  is  Meister  Eckehart  identical  with  / rater  EJcar- 
dus,  who  was  Prior  of  Frankfort?  Where  is  the  proof? 
There  is  only  a  single  one,  namely,  a  similarity  of  name ! 
But  was  there  at  that  time  in  all  Germany  only  one 
Dominican  named  Eckehart?  By  no  means ;  we  know  of 
at  least  three:  Meister  Eckehart,  Eckehart  the  Younger, 
who  was  not  Master,  and  who  died  in  1367,  and  the  lector, 
Eckehart  Eube.  Similarly  there  may  have  been  some 
other  Dominican  of  the  same  name.  ...  Is  there 
such  an  accusation,  as  we  have  mentioned,  known  con- 
cerning Meister  Eckehart?  Not  at  all;  on  the  contrary, 
we  have  seen  that  he  could  publicly,  in  presence  of  the  In- 
quisitors, boast  of  his  reputation  and  say,  'I  have  always 
detested  every  kind  of  immoral  conduct.'26  Eckehart  was 
never  molested  on  account  of  his  morals  or  his  conduct. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  see  him  spoken  of  as  '  the  holy  Mas- 
ter,' 'vir  sanctus'  .  .  .  Is  he  really  identical  with  the 
Prior  of  Frankfort?  It  is  very  improbable,  and  this  all 
the  more  so,  as  the  prior  is  simply  called  frater,  whereas 
if  Meister  Eckehart  were  the  one  implied,  the  title  of  Mas- 
ter would  not  be  wanting ;  and  as  no  other  document  than 
the  above  mentioned  letter  of  Herveus  can  be  produced  as 
evidence  of  Eckehart 's  sojourn  in  Frankfort,  it  is  there- 
fore extremely  doubtful  if  he  ever  was  in  Frankfort."27 

How  long  Eckehart  remained  in  Strasburg  cannot  be 
known  with  any  certainty.  All  we  are  sure  of  is,  that 
some  time  previous  to  1326  he  was  sent  to  fill  the  chair 
of  dogmatic  theology  at  Cologne,  one  of  the  most  influen- 
tial and  honorable  posts  of  his  Order  in  Germany.  With 
his  labors  in  Cologne  we  reach  the  closing  years  of  his 
untiring  activity.  As  professor  he  exerted  a  profound 


2aDenifle,  opus  cit,  II  p.  631. 
"Ibid.,  618. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  21 

influence  on  the  younger  generation  of  his  Order,  and  as 
preacher  he  powerfully  moved  the  throngs  who  ordinarily 
filled  the  church.  The  bull  of  John  XXII  that  condemns 
some  of  his  doctrines,  as  well  as  the  papal  letter  to  the 
Archbishop  of  Cologne  ordering  the  publication  of  the 
bull,  speak  of  Eckehart  as  doctor  of  Sacred  Scripture  and 
professor  of  the  Friar  Preachers  ;28  in  the  latter  writing 
the  Pope  discriminates  between  preaching,  writing,  and 
teaching,  (predicasse,  scripsisse  et  dogmatizasse). 

At  the  General  Chapter  of  the  Order  in  Venice  A.  D. 
1325  complaints  were  made  that  some  of  the  brethren  of 
the  German  Province,  when  preaching  to  the  illiterate 
common  people,  spoke  on  such  profound  topics  as  could 
easily  lead  them  to  heresy.  29  Preger  surmises  that  here 
the  first  steps  were  taken  against  Eckehart 's  teaching.30 
Denifle  on  the  assumption  that  these  complaints  are  too 
general,  believes  they  bear  on  the  interdict  which  the 
conflict  between  the  Pope  and  Louis  the  Bavarian  brought 
on  Germany,  especially  as  the  minutes  of  the  Chapter 
joined  this  complaint  to  that  which  accuses  some  of  the 
friars  in  Germany  of  notable  negligence  in  publications 
concerning  the  process  of  the  Pope  against  Louis  of  Ba- 
varia.31 However,  a  careful  perusal  of  Eckehart 's  ser- 
mons and  those  of  his  disciples  shows  but  too  plainly  how 
easily  they  could  prove  a  stumbling  block  to  the  simple- 
minded  ;  and  as  S.  Deutsch  says,32  an  unprejudiced  exam- 
ination of  the  aforesaid  words  must  bring  them  to  bear 
upon  errors  of  faith  rather  than  upon  the  political  con- 
flict. Nothing  certain,  however,  is  known  in  the  matter, 
not  even  the  result  of  the  investigation  of  the  Vicar,  Ger- 
vasius  of  Angers.  Probably  it  is  to  this  examination  that 

28Ekardus  nomine,  doctorque  ut  fertur  sacre  pagine,  ac  professor 
ordinis  fratrum  Predicatorum.  Ibid.,  636. 

29In  praedicatione  vulgari  quaedam  personis  vulgaribus  ac  rudibus 
in  sermonibus  proponuntur  quae  possunt  auditores  facile  deducere  in 
errorem. 

"Preger,  opus  cit.,  p.  355. 

31Denifle,  opus  cit.,  II,  p.  624. 

32Deutsch,  Meister  Eckehart.  Realencyclopedie  fur  protestantische 
Theologie  und  Kirche  V,  p.  144.  Leipzig,  1898. 


22  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

a  passage  in  the  treatise  "The  Two  Ways"  refers,  in 
which  Eckehart  begs  his  hearers  not  to  make  their  friends 
acquainted  with  the  book,  which  is  very  difficult,  and  espe- 
cially since  he  has  been  forbidden  to  disseminate  it.33  For- 
bidden, not  because  it  contained  actual  heresy,  but  for 
the  reason  he  himself  alleges,  that  it  is  difficult  and  this 
above  all  for  the  simple  minds  of  his  hearers,  whom  it 
might  lead  into  error. 

In  the  same  year  1325  accusations  against  the  Friar 
Preachers  in  Germany  were  carried  to  the  Papal  Court. 
John  XXII  appointed  two  Dominicans,  Benedict  de  Come 
and  Nicholas  of  Strasburg,  vicars  of  the  General  and 
visitors  of  the  German  Province,  and  charged  them  to  look 
into  the  affair.  Preger  holds  for  certain  that  this  letter 
of  the  Pope  is  directed  against  Meister  Eckehart,  but 
Denifle  demonstrates  from  the  same  document34  that  no 
direct  complaints  were  made  on  account  of  erroneous 
doctrines,  but  rather  censures  of  irregularities  within 
the  communities  themselves.  From  the  documents,  which 
jDenifle  was  the  first  to  publish,35  we  learn  what  these 
irregularities  were,  namely:  a  spirit  of  discontent;  non- 
observance  of  religious  discipline,  even  by  the  superiors 
themselves;  molestation  of  those  who  kept  to  strict  ob- 
servance ;  abuses  which  the  vicars  are  called  upon  to  cor- 
rect. Hence  the  papal  commission  does  not  apply  specifi- 
cally to  Eckehart,  nor  above  all  to  any  heresy  among  the 
Dominicans.36 

Eckehart  had  completed  his  system  and  given  a  full 
exposition  of  it  before  the  last  year  of  his  life,  when  he 
was  suspected  of  heresy.  There  is  not  the  slightest  trace 
of  a  document,  which  permits  even  the  supposition  that 
before  1326  he  aroused  the  least  opposition,  provoked  the 


S3Vnd  sind  daz  puch  1st  selb  schwer  vnd  vnbekant  manigen  lewten 
dar  vmb  sol  man  es  nicht  gemain  machen,  des  pit  ich  ewch  durch  got, 
wann  es  ward  mir  auch  verpoten. 

"Denifle,  op.  cit.,  IV,  p.  314.     Pummerer,  op,  cit,  p.  21. 

35Denifle,   ibid. 

36Aktenstiicke  zu  Meister  Eckehart's  Process.  Zeitschrift  fur 
deutsches  Altertum,  XXIX,  p.  260. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  23 

least  inquiry.  Previous  to  the  learned  researches  of 
Denifle,  all  conclusions  bearing  on  this  question  rest 
partly  on  combination,  partly  on  false  premises.  Since 
the  days  of  Ch.  Schmidt  it  has  been  believed  that  Ecke- 
hart  was  in  close  touch  with  the  Beghards  of  Strasburg. 
These  had  been  condemned  by  John  of  Diirckheim,  bishop 
of  that  city,  who  called  the  attention  of  his  clergy  to  seven 
very  dangerous  errors  of  the  Beghards  and  Beguines  of 
the  diocese,  and  forbade  every  communication  with  the 
heretics,  even  to  the  bestowal  of  alms.  According  to  Las- 
son,  these  condemned  errors  were,  for  the  most  part, 
drawn  from  the  writings  of  Eckehart;  and  yet  without 
any  molestation  he  continued  his  preaching  at  Strasburg 
till  after  1322 !  But  where,  we  ask  with  Denifle,  is  the  doc- 
ument that  can  furnish  even  the  smallest  clue  that  Ecke- 
hart was  ever  harassed  by  the  Bishop  of  Strasburg?  If 
such  had  been  the  case,  how  could  he  have  publicly  de- 
clared before  the  Inquisitors  of  Cologne  on  January  24, 
1327,  that  his  Order  has  been  at  no  time  since  its  founda- 
tion dishonored  by  the  heresy  of  any  friar  in  the  province 
of  Germany?37  How  could  he  have  appealed  to  the  good 
reputation  which  he  had  ever  enjoyed  in  the  opinion  of 
good  men  and  of  his  community?38  What  could  the  sup- 
pression of  the  actual  facts  have  availed  him  with  Inquisi- 
tors who  were  anything  but  favorably  disposed  towards 
him,  not  to  mention  the  circumstance  that  the  Bishop  of 
Strasburg  was  still  alive  to  witness,  if  necessary,  to  his 
former  errors? 


"Nunquam  a  tempore  sue  fundationis  nee  in  aliquo  simplici  fratre 
in  provincia  Theutonie  fuit  de  heresi  infamatus. 
38Iudicio  bonorum  hominum  et  communium. 


CHAPTER  II 

MEISTEK  ECKEHAKT  AND  THE  INQUISITION 

It  was  only  at  the  close  of  his  life  in  1326  that 
Eckehart 's  doctrine  was  first  called  into  question  by 
Henry  of  Virneburg,  Archbishop  of  Cologne.  According 
to  some  authorities  the  Archbishop  forwarded  complaints 
against  Eckehart 's  doctrine  to  the  papal  court,  but  with- 
out any  effect.  From  Eckehart 's  protest  we  learn  that 
his  cause  had  been  examined  by  Nicholas  of  Strasburg 
and  that  he  had  been  wholly  exonerated.  Nicholas,  in 
virtue  of  the  authority  which  John  XXII  had  conferred 
upon  him  as  vicar  and  visitor,  regarded  himself  as  author- 
ized to  interfere  with  the  process  begun  by  Henry  of 
Virneburg  against  Eckehart.  He  took  the  cause  into  his 
own  hands,  as  much  to  preserve  the  reputation  of  the 
Order  as  to  shield  Eckehart  from  designing  men.  He 
commanded  under  pain  of  excommunication  that  if  any 
friar  in  the  monastery  knew  anything  whatever  pertain- 
ing to  the  process  against  Eckehart,  which  the  honor  of 
the  Order  demanded  should  be  revealed,  he  should  com- 
municate the  same  to  him.  As  will  be  noticed  shortly,  it 
seems  all  did  not  render  the  required  obedience.  As  soon 
as  Nicholas  was  in  possession  of  the  necessary  data,  he 
at  once  began  the  official  investigation.  At  its  close  he 
gave  a  verdict  in  favor  of  Eckehart;  nevertheless,  the 
Archbishop  formally  summoned  Eckehart  to  appear  be- 
fore his  tribunal  on  January  31,  1327.  Henry  then  ap- 
pointed as  Inquisitors  the  rivals  of  Eckehart,  two  Fran- 
ciscan theologians  of  Cologne.  This  was  an  open 
challenge  to  the  Dominicans  and  caused  the  entire  Order 
to  take  sides  with  Eckehart.  He  did  not  wait  for  the  day 
set  by  the  commissioners,  but  appeared  before  that  time, 
on  January  24th,  accompanied  by  five  of  his  brethren  and 
several  other  monks  for  the  reading  of  his  protest  to  the 
Inquisitors,  which  his  confrere,  Conrad  of  Halberstadt, 

24 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  25 

did  in  his  name.1  After  asserting  that  in  accusing  him  of 
heresy  they  had  accused  his  Order,  in  which  from  its  very 
foundation  no  one  had  ever  been  suspected  of  heresy,  he 
protests  in  energetic  terms  against  the  disgraceful  man- 
ner in  which  the  Inquisitors  had  proceeded  against  him,  by 
their  arbitrary  and  shameful  dragging  out  of  the  whole 
affair,  which  could  have  been  concluded  before  the  middle 
of  the  previous  year.  Conscious  of  his  innocence,  which 
he  repeatedly  affirms,  he  complains  of  the  annoying  and 
harsh  treatment  of  the  commissioners  in  summoning  him 
so  often  and  without  any  necessity,  notwithstanding  that 
he  always  declared  his  readiness  to  obey  the  law  and  the 
Church  of  God.  He  reproaches  his  judges  with  the  scan- 
dal given  to  clerics  and  the  laity  by  this  long-drawn-out 
process  and  indignantly  protests  against  their  demand  of 
a  recantation  before  they  are  able  to  convict  him  of 
heresy.  Above  all  he  bitterly  upbraids  the  Inquisitors 
with  citing  suspicious  members  of  his  Order  to  give  evi- 
dence against  him,  because  these  latter  hoped  in  this  way 
to  escape  the  well-deserved  punishment  due  their  own 
irregularities,  and  with  lending  a  readier  ear  to  these 
false  witnesses  and  their  statements  than  to  his  innocence.2 
Eckehart  then  affirms  his  obedience  to  the  Church,  de- 
clares he  submits  his  doctrine  to  her  authoritative  judg- 
ment, and  recalls  any  proposition  that  might  be  contrary 
to  her  dogma ;  an  attitude  which  he  preserved  to  the  end  of 
his  life.  After  again  emphasizing  the  illegality  of  the 
whole  process,  for  his  case  had  been  legally  closed  by 
Nicholas  of  Strasburg  and  could  not,  therefore,  be  judged 
by  another  court,  he  closes  his  protest  with  an  appeal  to 

'For  the  complete  text  see  Denifle,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  627. 

2Et  ad  infamandum  me  amplius  advocatis  frequenter  fratris  mei 
ordinis  suspectos  eidem  ordini  vehementer  propter  causas  evidenter 
notas,  qui  propter  notam  excessuum  turpitudinis  propriorum  id  pro- 
curant  apud  vos,  incorrigibiles  esse  volentes  super  suis  excessibus  in 
iure  notoriis  per  judicum  suorum  sententias,  super  quo  ipsos  fovetis 
impossibiliter  in  gravamen  et  notam  mei  status  et  ordinis  mei  predicti, 
quorum  dictis  falsis  magis  innitimini,  quam  mee  innocentie  et  puri- 
tati.  For  the  full  text  see  Denifle,  Akten  zum  Prozesse  Meister  Ecke- 
harts.  Archiv  II,  p.  628. 


26  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

the  Roman  Curia  expressing  Ms  willingness  and  readiness 
to  appear  at  Avignon  on  the  Monday  after  Jubilate  Sun- 
day, which  occurred  in  that  year  (1327)  on  May  fourth. 
Denifle  tells  us  who  these  witnesses  were — the  friars 
Hermann  de  Summo  and  William.  The  former  was  not 
unknown,  as  his  name  occurs  in  two  different  documents. 
In  the  first  we  read  that  at  one  time  he  appeared  as 
accuser,  at  another  as  assistant,  and  finally  as  witness.3 
It  seems  that  he  vented  his  rage  likewise  against  Nich- 
olas of  Strasburg,  whom  the  Pope  had  appointed  Vicar 
of  Germany.  Hermann,  who  calumniated  Eckehart,  had 
in  revenge  for  a  well-deserved  punishment  denounced 
Nicholas  and  thus  caused  him  to  be  excommunicated.* 
This  fact  explains  sufficiently  why  Hermann  passed  over 
to  a  party  hostile  to  Eckehart ;  the  Archbishop  became  his 
protector  and  as  long  as  the  process  continued  he  had 
nothing  to  fear  from  Nicholas,  justly  incensed  against 
him.  It  was  not  otherwise  in  regard  to  his  accomplice  and 
confrere  William.5  William  appears  to  have  surpassed 
Hermann  in  his  enmity  towards  Meister  Eckehart,  whom 
he  accused  as  a  heretic  who  knowingly  and  deliberately 
defended  his  errors.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  that 
the  Archbishop  and  the  commissioners  were  ill  advised 
by  these  two  refractory  monks.  The  bill  of  indictment 
sent  to  Avignon  alludes  to  this  fact,  and  the  Pope,  whose 
attention  was  drawn  to  the  false  witnesses,  took  up  at 
,  his  curia  the  investigation  against  Eckehart,  thus  putting 
an  end  to  the  process  at  Cologne.  This  same  bill  mani- 
fests the  great  veneration  in  which  Meister  Eckehart  was 
held  by  his  Order ;  it  refers  to  his  faith  and  holiness  of 


3Aliquando  gessit  personam  actoris,  aliquando  assessoris,  aliquando 
testis.  Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches  Altertum  XXIX,  p.  263. 

4Ipse  cum  aliis  dicitur  procurasse,  ut  etiam  famosum  est  et  satis 
publicum,  quod  vicarius  ille  ex  hoc  et  propter  hoc,  quia  quondam 
fratrem  suis  gravibus  excessibus  puniverat,  denunciatus  fuit  excom- 
municationis  sententiam  incurrisse.  Ibid. 

5Contra  fratrem  Gulielmum  socium  predicti  fratris  Hermanni. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  27 

life,  which  neither  Hermann  nor  anyone  else  who  knewj 
him  could  doubt.6 

On  Friday,  February  13,  1327,  Eckehart  preached  to 
the  people  in  the  church  of  the  Dominicans.  After  the 
sermon  he  begged  Friar  Conrad  of  Halberstadt  to  read 
in  the  presence  of  a  notary  a  document7  which  he  had 
previously  drawn  up.  As  soon  as  Conrad  had  read  an 
article,  Eckehart  explained  it  word  for  word  in  German 
to  the  congregation.  He  then  protested  his  aversion  to 
every  species  of  heresy  and  immorality  and  withdrew 
any  error  that  might  be  found  against  faith  or  morals 
either  in  his  writings  or  in  his  spoken  words.  "If  there 
be  discovered  anything  erroneous  in  what  I  have  written, 
spoken,  or  preached,  openly  or  secretly,  in  any  place  or 
at  any  time,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  a  sense  not  quite 
correct  or  to  be  rejected,  I  retract  it  here  and  now, 
explicitly  and  publicly,  before  all  here  present,  together 
and  individually,  and  from  this  moment  I  wish  it  to  be 
considered  as  neither  written  nor  spoken. "  Then  Ecke- 
hart took  up  three  articles  which  had  been  misinterpreted, 
showed  how  he  understood  them,8  and  again  affirmed  his 
perfect  readiness  to  correct  and  recall  whatever  should 
prove  to  be  heterodox. 

Much  has  been  written  about  this  recantation  of 
Meister  Eckehart.  Preger,  as  well  as  several  others, 
refuse  to  believe  that  Eckehart  really  recalled  any  of  his 


8De  cuius  tamen  fide  et  vite  sanctitate  nee  ipse  (Hermann)  debet 
nee  alius,  qui  vitam  suam  noverit,  dubitare. 

7For  the  complete  text  see  Denifle,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  630. 

8Specialiter  etiam  quia  male  intellectum  me  audio,  quod  ego 
predicaverim,  minimum  meum  digitum  creasse  omnia,  quia  illud  non 
intellexi,  nee  dixi  prout  verba  sonant,  sed  dixi  de  digitis  illius  parvi 
pueri  Jhesu. 

Et  quod  aliquid  sit  in  anima,  si  ipsa  tota  esset  talis,  ipsa  esset 
increata,  intellexi  verum  esse  et  intelligo  etiam  secundum  doctores 
meos  collegas,  si  anima  esset  intellectus  essentialiter. 

Nee  etiam  unquam  dixi,  quod  sciam,  nee  sensi,  quod  aliquid  sit 
in  anima,  quod  sit  aliquid  animae  quod  sit  increatum  et  increabile, 
quia  tune  anima  esset  peciata  excreato  et  increato,  cuius  oppositum 
scripsi  et  docui,  nisi  quis  vellet  dicere:  increatum  vel  non  creatum, 
id  est  non  per  seT  creatum,  sed  concreatum.  Denifle,  op  cit  II 
p.  631. 


28  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

doctrines  or  even  admitted  their  heresy.9  Charles  Schmidt 
goes  so  far  as  to  say :  ' i  Each  line  of  Eckehart  's  writings 
\  betrays  a  conviction  so  profound,  a  religious  and  philo- 
sophical enthusiasm  so  ardent,  a  logic  so  inflexible,  that 
an  absolute  retractation  would  hardly  be  comf ormable  to 
his  character";  therefore  Schmidt  calls  this  retractation 
"an  illusion  on  the  part  of  Eckehart."10  Delacroix,  after 
stating  that  Eckehart  did  not  expressly  reject  the  twenty- 
eight  incriminated  articles,  as  they  had  not  yet  been 
definitely  drawn  up,  adds  that  by  the  full  submission  he 
promised  in  advance  to  the  pontifical  decrees,  he  leads 
us  to  believe  that  he  would  not  have  hesitated  to  retract 
them  earlier.  Hence  Delacroix  admits,  as  every  candid, 
unbiased  mind  logically  must,  that  Eckehart 's  whole 
character  as  revealed  in  his  writings,  shows  a  thinker  as 
upright  as  he  is  profound  and  withal  a  most  obedient 
son  of  Mother  Church,  who,  without  laying  down  any 
condition,  humbly  submits  to  the  decisions  of  the  Holy 
See.11  And  yet  Delacroix  cannot  refrain  from  adding: 
"Truly,  humility  is  admirable,  but  the  exercise  of  the 
intellect  supposes  a  little  pride ;  to  think,  it  is  necessary 
to  be,  that  is  to  say,  it  is  necessary  to  begin  by  being 
conscious  of  one's  own  being.  One  admires  the  equa- 
nimity of  character,  the  profound  modesty,  the  perfect 
propriety  which  enabled  an  Eckehart  or  a  Fenelon  to  sub- 
mit absolutely  and  without  any  restriction  to  a  judgment 
on  their  teaching;  but  this  admiration  is  not  without  a 
little  impatience  and  ill-humor ;  truth  is  diverse  and  each 
person  in  the  very  name  of  general  and  absolute  truth, 
has  the  duty  of  defending  the  species  of  truth  which  he 
produces.  Eeason  cannot  bow  but  before  reason.12  Biitt- 
ner  does  not  hesitate  to  call  the  statement  that  Eckehart 


8Preger,   op.   cit.,   p.   361. 
10Schmidt,  op.  cit,  p.  244. 

"Delacroix,  Essai  sur  le  mysticisme  speculatif  en  Allemagne,  p  229 
Paris,  1899. 

12Ibid.,  p.  231. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  29 

recanted  a  falsification  of  history.13  But  did  Eckehart  not 
say  distinctly  and  before  witnesses,  whose  names  are 
affixed  to  the  document,  that  if  on  impartial  examination 
it  was  found  that  he  had  taught  anything  contrary  to  the 
Catholic  faith,  he  recanted  it  as  completely  as  though  it 
had  never  been  written  or  spoken?  He  surely  could  not 
recall  each  of  the  twenty-eight  articles  before  they  had 
been  condemned!  Evidently,  three  of  the  articles  had 
been  specifically  censured  by  the  Inquisitors,  and  these 
three,  as  said  above,  he  interprets  in  an  orthodox  sense 
for  his  hearers.  We  must,  however,  admit  that  Eckehart 
never  appeared  greater,  nor  more  triumphant  than  when, 
conscious  of  his  own  human  limitations,  he  submitted 
freely  and  unconditionally  to  a  higher,  to  a  divinely  ap- 
pointed authority-  What  then  renders  this  belief  in  Ecke- 
hart 's  retractation  so  difficult? 

His  appeal  to  the  Eoman  Curia  was  rejected  by 
the  Commission  on  February  22,  1327,  as  worthless, 
"frivola."  The  process  was  not  concluded  at  Cologne, 
but  was  brought  to  a  final  issue  two  years  later  at  Avig- 
non, when  John  XXII,  in  the  Bull  "In  agro  dominico,"1* 
condemned  twenty-eight  articles  drawn  from  Eckehart 's 
works.  The  first  fifteen  and  the  last  two  are  pronounced 
heretical  and  the  eleven  others  as  daring  and  liable  to 
contain  heresy,  although  by  means  of  many  expositions 
and  additions  they  can  be  interpreted  in  a  Catholic 
sense.15  Then  follows  the  prohibition  to  defend  or  ap- 
prove the  condemned  articles  and  the  bull  concludes  by 
stating  that  Eckehart  before  his  death  again  fully 
retracted  any  word,  spoken  or  written,  that  was  found 
to  contain  heresy  or  was  capable  of  any  heretical 
interpretation.16 


"Biittner,  Meister  Eckeharts  Schriften  und  Predigten,  I,  p.  XXXIV. 
Leipzig,  1903. 

14Por  full  text  see  Denifle,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  636. 

15Male  sonare  et  multum  esse  temerarios  de  heresique  suspectos, 
licet  cum  multis  expositionibus  et  suppletionibus  sensum  catholicum 
formare  valeant  vel  habere. 

16Ch.  Schmidt   (op.  cit.,  p.  245)   states  that  in  the  following  year 


30  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

In  the  meantime  Eckehart  had  quietly  passed  away 
in  1327,  but  not  without  again  fully  and  humbly  sub- 
mitting to  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See.  Well  might 
his  memory  be  held  in  benediction  by  those  of  his  disci- 
ples who  knew  him  best.  Blessed  Henry  Suso,  in  one 
of  his  spiritual  letters  to  Elizabeth  Staglin,  says:  "My 
daughter,  it  is  only  a  short  time  since  you  communicated 
to  me  the  high  and  sublime  thoughts  you  collected  from 
the  beautiful  writings  of  Meister  Eckehart,  of  holy  mem- 
ory, and  you  did  well  to  preserve  them  so  reverently. 
I  am  astonished  that  after  having  tasted  this  delicious 
draught,  you  appear  to  desire  the  simple  beverage  that 
I  can  give  you."17  Suso  tells  us  in  his  "Life"  that  Ecke- 
hart appeared  to  him  in  a  vision  and  declared  that  his 
soul  was  plunged  in  an  ineffable  brightness  and  all  glori- 
fied in  God.  Suso  and  Tauler  always  speak  of  him  in 
terms  of  the  greatest  reverence ;  they  call  him  1 1  the  holy 
Master,"  "the  blessed  Master,"  "the  Saint."  At  the 
head  of  his  treatises  contemporary  copyists  wrote :  ' i  This 
is  Meister  Eckehart,  from  whom  God  never  concealed 
anything,"  or  "This  is  Meister  Eckehart,  who  taught 
the  way  of  all  truth." 


(1330)  Pope  John  XXII  directed  a  bull  against  the  Beghards;  that 
the  articles  it  condemned  were  exactly  like  those  drawn  from  Ecke- 
hart's  writings;  hence  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  latter's  connection 
with  the  heretics — he  was  their  friend  and  secret  patron.  This  error 
was  indirectly  brought  about  by  Henry  of  Hervord,  who  had  some 
knowledge  of  the  bull  against  Eckehart  which  he  supposed  had  been 
directed  against  the  Beghards.  (See  Liber  de  rebus  memorab.,  ed. 
Potthast,  p.  247.) 

"Oeuvres  du  B.  Henri  Suso  traduites  par  E.  Cartier,  p.  542.   Paris, 
1856. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   WORKS   OF   MEISTEB  ECKEHABT 

1.  The  Latin  Works 

If  the  student  of  Eckehart 's  works  were  to  use  Preger 
as  his  sole  authority,  he  would  be  led  to  conclude  that 
Eckehart  wrote  in  German  only,  that  he  is  par  excellence 
the  German  mystic,  the  "Father  of  German  Specula- 
tion," for  Preger  makes  no  mention  of  his  Latin  works, 
no  reference  to  those  who,  like  Nicholas  of  Cusa  and 
Trithemius,  have  examined  them.  Nicholas  of  Cusa1  tells 
us  that  he  saw  many  commentaries  by  Eckehart  on  nearly 
all  the  books  of  Sacred  Scripture,  many  sermons,  ques- 
tiones  disputatae,  etc.;  also  a  short  treatise,  a  reply  to 
his  critics,  in  which  he  explains  his  doctrines,  and  shows 
that  his  readers  did  not  understand  him  aright.  Trithe- 
mius cites  a  good,  though  incomplete  list  of  Eckehart's 
works.2  These  Latin  writings  had  fallen  into  oblivion 
until  Denifle,  in  August,  1880,  discovered  some  important 
fragments  in  a  manuscript  (Cod.  Amplon.  Fol.  n.  181) 
belonging  to  the  library  of  Erfurt.  Denifle  himself  has 
given  a  detailed  account  of  the  outcome  of  his  researches.3 

The  greater  part  of  these  writings  belong  to  Eckehart's 
Opus  tripartitum.  According  to  the  Prologue,  this  con- 
sisted of  three  parts.  The  first,  the  Liber  or  opus  propo- 
sitionum,  contained  more  than  one  thousand  propositions 
of  a  theologico-philosophical  nature  distributed  through 
fourteen  different  treatises,  whose  titles  are  enumerated 
in  the  Prologue.  The  Liber  propositionum  was  known  to 
Trithemius  and  is  probably  the  work  he  calls  Positionum 
suarum  liber,  hence  the  title  in  Pfeiffer,  Liber  positionum. 
The  second  part,  the  Opus,  or  liber  questionum,  was 

1Nicholas  of  Cusa,  Apologia  doctae  ignorantiae.  Parisiis,  1514  I., 
fol.  390. 

^Trithemius  De  script,  ecclesiasticis,  cap.  537.  Cf.  Denifle.  op. 
cit.  II,  p.  418. 

3Denifle,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  417. 

31 


32  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

arranged  after  the  fashion  of  the  Sumina  of  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas.  The  third  part,  the  Opus  expositionum,  con- 
tained the  sermons  in  its  first  subdivision  and  com- 
mentaries on  Sacred  Scripture  in  the  second.  In  addi- 
tion to  two  introductions  the  Erfurt  manuscript  contains 
only  a  limited  fragment  of  the  third  part.  The  second 
subdivision  includes  commentaries  on  Genesis,  Exodus, 
and  Wisdom.  Of  the  first  subdivision  there  is  only  a 
fragment  of  the  commentary  on  Ecclesiasticus.  In  the 
part  still  extant  Eckehart  makes  frequent  reference  to 
other  portions  of  the  Opus  tripartitum. 

Some  months  later  the  learned  Dominican  discovered 
in  the  library  of  the  hospital  at  Cues,  on  the  Moselle, 
another  manuscript  dating  from  1444,  which  Nicholas 
of  Cusa  had  caused  to  be  transcribed,  which  is  based  on 
a  more  correct  and  more  complete  copy  than  that  of 
the  Erfurt  Codex.4  It  contains,  moreover,  the  Exposi- 
tion on  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  The  Commentary  on  the 
Book  of  Wisdom  is  followed  by  the  twenty-eight  con- 
demned articles.  After  the  first  seventeen  occurs  the  re- 
mark: "  These  articles  were  condemned  by  the  Pope  and 
were  recalled  by  Meister  Eckehart  at  the  close  of  his  life ; 
the  following  articles  were  censured  as  suspected  of 
heresy,"5  then  come  the  remaining  eleven.  The  last  part 
of  this  manuscript  is  a  collection  of  Latin  sermons  for 
the  different  Sundays  of  the  ecclesiastical  year.  They 
are  mostly  outlines,  a  few  only  are  complete.  The  Cues 
manuscript  proves  that  the  "Glossary  on  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John,"  as  given  by  Pfeiffer6  is  the  work  of  some 
unknown  writer  who  merely  borrowed  the  opening  words, 
"as  soon  as  God  was,  He  created  the  world,"  from  Ecke- 
hart's  "Glossary";  it  also  proves  that  the  Pater  nosier 
edited  by  Bach7  belongs  to  some  one  else,  for  that  of  the 

4Cf.  Denifle,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  673. 

5Isti  articuli  condempnati  a  papa  et  revocati  in  fine  rite  per  magis- 
trum  Heckardum.  Sequentes  articuli  relicti  sunt  tamquam  suspecti 
Ibid.,  p.  674. 

'Pfeiffer,  op.  cit.  II.,  p.  578. 

7Bach,  Meister  Eckhart,  der  Vater  der  deutschen  Speculation,  p  233 
Vienna.  1864. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART 

Cues  manuscript  is  quite  short  and  begins  thus :  Before 
reciting  the  Lord's  prayer  two  things  are  to  be  noted; 
first,  on  account  of  our  indolence  in  regard  to  the  things 
of  God  we  must  excite  ourselves  to  pray.8 

In  the  days  of  Suso  extracts  from  these  Latin  writings 
were  translated  into  German;  they  were  drawn  exclu- 
sively from  the  Commentary  on  Wisdom.  Pfeiffer  has 
embodied  them  in  the  third  part  of  his  work  as  Maxims.9 
Most  of  them  are  introduced  with  "Meister  Eckehart 
says."  The  manuscripts  of  Erfurt  and  Cues  prove  that 
the  most  important  of  Eckehart 's  works  were  composed 
in  Latin ;  that  the  German  writings  represent  but  a  very 
insignificant  part  of  his  literary  labors ;  and  finally  that 
he  is  essentially  a  scholastic  as  regards  matter  and  form. 
Like  many  of  the  great  Schoolmen  who  preceded  him,  he 
is  a  scholastic  as  well  as  a  mystic. 

2.  The  German  Works 

Meister  Eckehart  was  one  of  the  first  schoolmen  to 
write  in  German,  a  man  of  lofty  and  penetrating  spirit 
and  of  far-reaching  influence;10  yet,  strange  as  it  may 
seem,  until  a  very  recent  date,  his  writings  remained 
buried  in  oblivion.  Many  causes  may  be  assigned  for 
this  fact.  In  the  first  place,  Eckehart 's  field  of  labor 
was  subject  to  frequent  change;  he  seems  to  have  con- 
fined his  activity  to  sermons  preached  in  various  places ; 
and  lastly  it  was  in  the  interest  of  the  Order  not  to  appear 
to  favor  his  doctrine,  which  had  been,  in  part  at  least, 
condemned  by  the  Church.  Only  in  our  own  time,  in  the 
middle  of  the  last  century,  were  they  drawn  from  their 
obscurity  into  the  open  light  of  day.  The  honor  of  dis- 
covering them  belongs  to  Franz  Pfeiffer,  who,  after 
much  patience  and  unremitting  labor,  published  in  1857 


"Ante  dominicam  orationem  nota  duo,  primo,  quia  desides  sumus 
ad  divina,  ideo  primo  hortatur,  ut  rogemus  et  oremus.  Denifle,  op  cit , 
p.  675. 

"Pfeiffer,  op.  cit.  II,  p.   597. 

1()Bohmer,  Meister  Eckehart.     Damaris  1865,  p.   64. 


34  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

a  rich  collection  of  Eckehart 's  German  works.  He 
divided  this  collection  into  four  parts :  sermons,  treatises, 
maxims,  and  the  Liber  positionum.  The  sermons  num- 
ber one  hundred  and  ten;  of  these,  according  to  Eieger 
Nos.  LXXVF,  CV-CX  are  not  authentic.  There  are 
eighteen  treatises;  the  sixth  known  as  "Daz  ist  swester 
Katrie,  meister  Eckeharts  tohter  von  Strasburg"  origi- 
nated most  probably  among  the  Beghards  or  the  Brethren 
of  the  Free  Spirit,  who  wished  to  shield  themselves 
behind  the  name  and  fame  of  Eckehart.11  It  is  quite  cer- 
tain that  the  third  treatise,  "Von  der  sele  werdikeit  und 
eigenschaf t, "  at  least  in  the  form  presented  by  Pfeiffer, 
is  not  the  work  of  Eckehart,  neither  is  the  seventh 
treatise,  "Die  zeichen  eines  wahrften  grundes,"  nor  the 
eighth,  "Von  der  geburt  des  ewigen  wortes  in  der  sele. " 
The  last,  that  is  the  eighteenth  treatise,  "Din  Glose  iiber 
daz  ewangelium  S.  Johannis,"  is,  as  shown  above,  the 
work  of  some  unknown  writer.  Two  sermons  attributed 
by  PfeifTer12  to  Kraft  von  Boyberg  and  to  Franke  von 
Koine,  belong  most  probably  to  Eckehart;  in  fact,  a 
manuscript  discovered  at  Strasburg  has  the  latter 's  name 
and  not  Franke 's  affixed  to  it,  while  a  printed  publica- 
tion of  extracts  from  Eckehart 's  writings  dated  1521 
contains  the  greater  part  of  this  sermon. 

There  is  still  another  exposition  of  the  Pater  nosier 
taken  from  a  paper  manuscript  of  the  early  fifteenth 
century  which  bears  the  title:  This  is  the  Pater  noster 
with  the  Glossary  of  Meister  Eckehart.13  This  exposi- 
tion differs  from  that  given  by  Bach,14  while  neither 
agrees  with  the  Latin  version  of  the  Cues  manuscript. 
Besides  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Bach  published  an  exposition 
on  the  verse  Dominus  dixit — the  Lord  hath  said — and  a 


"This  treatise  has  been  published  by  Birlinger  as  Meister  Ecke- 
hart's.  Alemannia,  p.  15.  1875. 

12In  Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches  Altertum  VIII,  pp.  238-251. 

13Diz  ist  das  pater  noster  myt  der  glozen  Meister  Eckhart.  Zeit- 
schrift fur  deutsche  Philologie,  p.  89.  1882. 

14Bach,  op.  cit.,  p.  233. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  35 

short  treatise,  "How  the  loving  soul  is  a  heaven. "15 
Preger  contributes  a  treatise  which  he  discovered  in  the 
library  of  Niirnberg:  "On  Contemplating  God  by  Means 
of  the  Active  Beason."16  The  most  important  addition 
to  Pfeiffer's  collection  has  been  made  by  Sievers,17  who 
found  twenty-six  sermons  of  Eckehart.  Twenty  of  these 
he  took  from  a  parchment  (Laud.  Misc.,  479,  Bodleiana) 
dating  from  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century  and 
which  originally  came  from  a  Carthusian  monastery  near 
Mainz.  This  manuscript  contains  sixty-four  German 
sermons  with  authors '  names  appended ;  thirty-one  belong 
to  Eckehart,  eleven  of  which  are  given  wholly  or  in  part 
by  Pfeiffer.  The  remaining  six  sermons  are  contained  in 
a  paper  manuscript  now  in  the  royal  library  of  Cassel 
(M.S.  Theol.,  4°,  94)  dated  1470,  but  originally  from  the 
Church  of  St.  Peter  at  Fritzlar.  There  are  ten  anony- 
mous sermons  in  this  manuscript  written  in  Eckehart 's 
style;  three  of  these  Pfeiffer  published  from  other 
sources ;  Delacroix18  thinks  that  the  six  given  by  Sievers 
are  part  of  the  treatise  "Von  der  sele  werdikeit  und 
eigenschaf t. "  Finally,  Biittner,  in  his  modern  transla- 
tion of  Eckehart 's  sermons,  embodies  a  new  treatise 
"Vom  zorne  der  sele"19  taken  mostly  from  a  Berlin 
manuscript  (Cod.  germ,  in  quart.,  191)  and  other  parts 
from  those  of  Niirnberg  and  St.  Gall. 

Meister  Eckehart  is  best  known  by  his  sermons.  He 
was  one  of  the  first  to  preach  in  the  churches  of  the 
Dominican  nuns,  to  which  the  laity  had  access  and 
whither  they  flocked  in  great  numbers,  drawn  as  much 
by  the  personality  of  the  preacher  as  by  the  content 
of  his  sermons.  Among  the  religious  cities  and  towns  of 
Germany  in  those  days,  Strasburg  held  a  foremost  rank ; 
all  forms  of  piety  were  represented  there,  particularly 


15Wie  die  minig  sel  ein  himel  gotes  ist  genant.     Ibid.,  p.  240. 

16Preger,  op.  cit.  I,  p.  484. 

17Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches  Altertum  XV. 

"Delacroix,  op.  cit.,  p.  178. 

"Biittner,  op.  cit.,  p.  178. 


36  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

among  the  members  of  i  i  the  devout  female  sex. ' '  There 
were  no  fewer  than  seven  convents  of  Dominican  nuns 
in  the  city.  It  was  to  the  priests  of  their  Order  that 
these  religious  looked  for  spiritual  guidance.  Only  the 
most  learned  masters,  the  most  distinguished  theolo- 
gians, were  selected  to  preach  to  the  nuns.20  The  masters 
and  the  lectors  naturally  gave  out  in  their  sermons  what 
they  themselves  had  learnt,  or  what  they  were  actually 
teaching  in  the  schools.  They  did  not  lay  aside  their 
'character  of  scholastics;  in  fact,  this  was  not  at  all 
necessary,  as  is  proved  by  the  ordinances  addressed  in 
1290  by  the  provincial  of  Germany,  Hermann  of  Minden, 
to  the  superiors  of  his  province,  in  which  he  recommends 
that  the  word  of  God  be  often  preached  to  the  sisters 
"by  learned  brethren  as  became  the  erudition  of  the 
nuns."  They  were  urged  to  present  the  sisters  as  pure 
spouses  to  Christ,  to  spur  them  on  to  stricter  observance 
of  enclosure,  to  die  to  themselves  and  to  all  things,  and 
to  strive  after  mystical  union  with  God.  In  regard  to 
this  last  which  became  more  important  in  proportion  as 
fthe  preachers  found  the  sisters  well  disposed,  the  ser- 
mons on  the  subject  are  styled  mystical  and  the  preach- 
ers mystics.  Here  is  found  the  origin  of  that  form  of 
preaching  peculiar  to  the  Dominican  mystics,  which 
secured  them  their  title  of  mystics,  whereas  their  true 
character  is  that  of  scholastics.21 

Then  for  the  first  time  the  nuns  heard  in  their  native 
tongue  scholastic  speculations  on  the  nature  of  God,  the 
blessed  Trinity,  the  divine  ideas,  the  relation  of  the  uni- 
verse to  God,  human  knowledge  considered  in  itself  and  in 
relation  to  God,  the  ground  of  the  soul,  and  the  birth  of 
the  Son  of  God  in  the  souls  of  the  just.  This  is  the 
subject  matter  which  differentiates  German  mysticism 
from  the  mysticism  of  St.  Bernard  and  the  Victorines. 
In  their  sermons  the  mystics  laid  special  stress  on  mystic 


20Delacroix,  op.  cit,  p.  143. 
21Denifle,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  646. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART 


37 


union  with  God,  emphasizing  the  repose  and  quiet  of  the 
faculties  rather  than  action.  Perhaps  none  of  them  dis- 
coursed on  such  profound  and  abstruse  thoughts  as 
Meister  Eckehart.  That  he  often  preached  in  the  con- 
vents of  Strasburg  is  proved  by  a  poem  of  a  Dominican 
nun,  who  recounts  the  merits  of  three  preachers.  These 
are  "the  worthy  lector, "  whom  she  does  not  name,  as  he 
was  known  to  all;  the  "great  Meister  Dietrich,'7  who 
speaks  exclusively  of  the  beginning  or  origin;  he  aims  to 
teach  us  the  eagle's  flight,  to  plunge  our  souls  into  the 
depths  without  depth;  the  third  is  the  "wise  Meister 
Eckehart. ' '  He  speaks  of  Nothingness — whoever  does  not 
understand  it  has  never  experienced  the  divine  illumina- 
tion. He  preaches  the  doctrine  of  self-annihilation,  of  the 
uncreated  life,  of  the  absolute  reality  of  being,  and  of 
contemplation  which  is  lost,  as  it  were,  in  this  being.22 
The  very  nature  of  these  subjects  caused  him  to  be 
often  misunderstood,  not  only  by  the  common  people  but 
also  by  the  more  learned  who  either  heard  him  or  read 
his  treatises.  On  one  occasion  when  someone  complained 
that  so  few  understood  his  sermons,  Eckehart  replied: 
"Whoever  wishes  to  understand  my  sermons  must  pos- 
sess five  qualities.  He  ought  to  be  victorious  in  all  con- 


-Der  werde  lesemeister 
der  wil  ir  einer  sin, 
er  wil  dy  sele  reizzen 
mit  der  minnen  furbit. 
siner   minen   sticke 
dut  er  ir  also  heiz 
daz  sy  von  recher  minnen 
nuderniden    enweiz. 
Scheiden  abe. 

Der  hohe  meister  Diderich 
der  wil  vns  machen  fro, 
er    sprachet    Ivterlichen 
al  in  principio. 
des  adelares  flvke 
wil  er  vns  machen  kunt, 
dy  sele  wil  er  versencken 
in  den  grunt  ane  grunt. 
Scheidet  abe. 


Der  wise  meister  Hechart 
wil  vns  von  niche  san: 
der   des   niden   verstat, 
der  mag  ez  gode  clan, 
in  den  hat  nit  gelvchet 
des  godeliche  schin. 
Scheiden. 

Ich  kan  vch  nit  geduden 
waz  man  vch  hat  gesat. 
ir  solet  vch  gar  vernichen 
in  der  geschaffenheit. 
geit  in  daz  ungeschaffen, 
verlisent  vch  selber  gar, 
aldar  hat  sich  ein  kaffen 
al  in  des  wesen  gar. 
Scheiden. 


This  poem  has  been  published  in  its  entirety  by  Hofler  from  a 
parchment  in  the  library  of  Thun-Hohenstein. 


38  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

flicts  with  self,  to  strive  unceasingly  after  the  highest 
good,  to  perform  all  things  that  God  asks  of  him,  to  be 
a  beginner  in  the  spiritual  life,  to  annihilate  self,  and 
never  yield  to  anger/'23  He  seems  to  have  realized  this 
difficulty  for  he  often  alludes  to  it.  "There  are  many 
who  do  not  understand  this,  and  it  does  not  surprise  me, 
for  to  grasp  this  one  must  be  detached  from  all  things. " 
"For  I  tell  you  by  the  Eternal  Truth:  unless  you  your- 
selves correspond  to  the  eternal  truth  of  which  we  are 
speaking,  you  cannot  understand  me. ' >25  "  Whoever  does 
not  comprehend  this  sermon,  let  him  not  trouble  him- 
self about  it. >'26 

Eckehart  had  not  a  few  difficulties  to  overcome  in  his 
sermons.  He  had  to  form  his  own  language,  so  to  speak. 
It  was  the  first  time  that  scholastic  questions  were  not 
discussed  in  Latin,  the  language  of  the  schools;  new 
terms  intelligible  to  all  and  conveying  the  scholastic  ideas 
had  to  be  coined.  Eckehart  really  succeeded  in  con- 
structing a  scientific  language  which  was  more  fully 
developed  in  the  following  centuries.  However,  his  desire 
to  be  intelligible  led  him  to  adopt  an  epigrammatic, 
antithetic  style  and  to  overlook  the  necessity  of  quali- 
fying phrases.  This  is  one  reason  why  he  laid  himself 
open  to  so  many  accusations  of  heresy.27  The  reader  is 
often  amazed  at  the  vividness  of  his  expressions.  This 
he  evinces  by  the  direct  questions  and  answers  he  fre- 
quently introduces  into  his  sermons.  In  these  he  formu- 
lates any  objection  that  might  arise  in  the  mind  of  his 
audience  and  answers  it  often  with  comparisons  from 
every-day  life.  Thus  wishing  to  give  his  hearers  a  clear 
idea  of  the  expression,  "Lord  of  Hosts/'  he  reminds 
them  of  a  lord  surrounded  by  a  great  number  of  retain- 
ers ;  not  an  unusual  sight  in  those  days  of  feudalism  and 


23Pfeiffer,  2.      (Cod.  Monac.  germ.   365,  Fol.   192b.) 

24Pfeiffer,  209,  29. 

28Pfeiffer,  181,  19. 

28Pfeiffer,  284,  28. 

27Inge,  Christian  Mysticism,  p.  150.     New  York.     1899. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  89 

chivalry.28  To  illustrate  how  God's  work  depends  on 
the  actual  state  of  each  individual  soul,  he  makes  use  of 
the  following  comparison:  "If  some  loaves  of  oaten 
bread,  some  of  barley  bread,  some  of  rye  bread,  and  some 
of  wheaten  bread  are  placed  in  a  heated  oven,  although 
the  heat  is  the  same  for  all,  yet  it  will  produce  of  the 
one  a  very  fine  loaf  of  bread,  a  coarser  loaf  out  of  another, 
and  a  still  coarser  one  out  of  a  third.  Thus  does  God's 
action  vary  according  to  the  degree  of  preparation  He 
finds  in  each  soul."29  The  following  example  served  to 
show  how  near  the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  us :  "  If  some 
clear  water  is  poured  into  a  clean  vessel  and  a  person 
gazes  into  it,  he  will  find  his  countenance  reflected  in  the 
clear,  still  water.  In  the  same  way  can  those  who  dwell 
in  peace  and  concord,  perceive  God  in  this  interior  peace 
and  calm."30 

Another  feature  of  Eckehart's  style  is  his  way  of  pass- 
ing from  the  general  to  the  particular,  from  the  abstract 
to  the  concrete,  and  vice  versa.  The  general  statement 
that  every  power  in  nature  seeks  to  reproduce  itself,  he 
elucidates  by  the  particular  example  that  his  father's 
nature  sought  to  reproduce  a  father;  but  being  unable 
to  do  so,  it  produced  that  which  resembles  it  in  every 
respect  and  thus  begot  a  son.31  From  the  abstract  ques- 
tion whether  the  angels  who  serve  men  on  earth  are  less 
happy  than  those  who  are  in  heaven,  he  passes  to  the 
concrete  example  of  a  person  always  fully  resigned  to 
God's  holy  will.32  What  might  be  called  the  character- 
istic of  Eckehart's  German  works  is  the  insistent  intru- 
sion of  the  personal  element.  One  can  hardly  read  a 
page  without  meeting  such  expressions  as  "but  I  say," 
"and  I,  Meister  Eckehart,"  "I  speak  thus,"  "I  have 
frequently  said,"  etc. 


28Biittner,  op.  cit,  p.  4;   Sievers,  no.  2  in  Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches 
Altertum,  XV. 

29Pfeiffer,  490,  4. 
30Pfeiffer,  233,  12. 
31Sievers,  op.  cit.,  no.  2. 
82Pfeiffer,  311,  29. 


40  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

A  comparison  of  the  German  with  the  Latin  works 
reveals  the  great  difference  between  them.  In  the  latter 
he  is  always  careful  to  mention  the  author  and  often  the 
work  from  which  he  cites;  whereas  in  the  former,  espe- 
cially in  the  sermons,  he  rarely  gives  any  but  a  general 
designation;  as,  "so  says  a  master,"  "a  pagan  master 
says  to  another  master,"  etc. ;  on  the  few  occasions  where 
he  does  name  the  author,  he  fails  to  give  the  work.  The 
reason  for  this  difference  is  that  the  sermons  were 
addressed  to  a  less  learned,  albeit  a  very  devout  assembly, 
than  were  those  who  either  listened  to  or  read  the  more 
scholarly  Latin  treatises.  The  writers  whom  Eckehart 
most  frequently  quotes  are  the  Pseudo-Dionysius, 
Boethius,  the  Victorines,  Albertus  Magnus,  Sts.  Augus- 
tine, Ambrose,  Isidore,  Bernard,  and  Thomas,  and  Plato 
and  Aristotle.  Eckehart  was  well  versed  in  the  philoso- 
phy of  his  time;  he  was  thoroughly  familiar  with  the 
works  of  Aristotle  and  his  Arabian  commentators  and 
with  the  treatises  of  St.  Thomas.  He  is  lauded  by  some 
perhaps  the  greatest  Aristotelian  of  his  period;  but 
Denifle  has  proved  that  he  does  not  cite  the  Stagirite  from 
the  original,  but  from  St.  Thomas,  and  that  his  erudition 
in  np  wise  surpasses  that  of  the  average  scholastic  of  the 
period. 

In  some  of  his  sermons  Eckehart  returned  to  the  older 
form  of  preaching,  the  homily,  taking  the  Gospel  and 
explaining  it  verse  by  verse,  often  giving  it  a  mystical 
interpretation.  At  other  times  his  text  was  a  short  say- 
ing from  the  Gospel  or  the  Epistle  or  from  some  part 
of  the  liturgy  of  the  Mass.33  Notwithstanding  their 
defects,  his  sermons  abound  in  high  and  prolific  thoughts 
which  inflamed  not  only  the  receptive  minds  of  his  hear- 
ers, but  indirectly  through  the  seeds  which  they  scat- 
tered broadcast  produced  for  later  generations  an 
abundant  spiritual  harvest.  Never  in  the  succeeding 

33See   sermons   on   Luke   1:26;    John   XV:  11;    Wisdom   XVIII -14- 
Heb.  XI:  37. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  41 

centuries  could  the  Church  in  Germany  again  boast  of  a* 
preacher  who  was  at  the  same  time  so  bold  and  profound 
a  thinker  and  of  such  an  original  cast  of  mind  as  Meister 
Eckehart.34  It  was  his  spirit  that  paved  the  way  for 
future  mysticism  in  the  Fatherland  and  the  most  noted 
mystics  like  Tauler  and  Blessed  Henry  Suso  are  in  the. 
strictest  sense  of  the  word  Eckehart 's  disciples. 

If  the  German  works  alone  are  consulted  one  must 
necessarily  conclude  that  Eckehart  was  only  a  mystic 
and  as  such  had  little  in  common  with  the  scholastics. 
Hence  to  obtain  a  correct  view  of  Eckehart  it  is  of  pri- 
mary importance  that  his  Latin  works  be  brought  into 
connection  with  the  German  writings,  as  these  latter 
often  depend  on  the  former  for  their  complete  elucida- 
tion. In  the  Latin  treatises  Eckehart  shows  himself  a1 
true  disciple  of  St.  Thomas  and  a  genuine  schoolman.  In 
attempting  the  following  outline  of  his  doctrine,  quota- 
tions from  the  Latin  and  the  German  works  are  brought 
together  whenever  this  is  possible,  and  where  one  is  the 
complement  of  the  other.  On  account  of  the  fragmentary 
state  of  the  Latin  writings  accessible,  it  has  not  been 
possible  to  draw  on  them  for  the  last  chapters  of  his 
doctrine,  these  have  had  to  be  taken  entirely  from  the 
German  sermons  and  treatises. 


"Cruel,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Predigt  im  Mittelalter,  p.  383. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   NATUBE,   UNITY,   AND   TEINITY   OF   GOD 

The  fundamental  proposition  of  Eckehart 's  doctrine 
may  be  summed  up  in  the  statement:  "Esse  est  Deus" 
God  is  being.  Everywhere  in  his  Latin  and  German  works 
he  repeats  this  proposition,  "God  is  being, "  or  "God 
and  being  are  the  same" — Deus  et  esse  idem.  This  is 
also  the  first  proposition  he  lays  down  in  the  Prologue 
to  the  Opus  tripartitum.1  l '  God  is  pure  being. '  '2  ' ' Being 
is  His  first  name."3  This  proposition  is  more  fully 
developed  in  the  introduction  to  the  Opus  propositionum. 
"Whether  we  ask  what  God  is  or  who  He  is,  the  answer 
is  always — being."4  Commenting  on  the  text,  "Behold 
I  send  my  angel"  (Luke  VII,  27)  Eckehart  interprets 
the  "I"  to  signify  God's  being,  that  God  alone  is.5  Here 
he  teaches  with  St.  Thomas  that  "He  who  is"  is  the 
name  most  properly  applied  to  God ;  for,  in  the  first  place, 
it  indicates  simple  existence,  and  secondly,  as  it  indicates 
no  mode  of  being,  it  names  the  vast  extent  of  substance.6 
Thus  the  proposition  esse  est  Deus  forms  the  essential 
element  in  the  argument  for  the  existence  of  God. 

But  how  are  we  to  understand  this  being  which  is  God  f 
It  is  for  Eckehart,  as  for  the  scholastics,  an  "esse  purum 
et  plenum"7 — the  purity  and  plenitude  of  being.  "In 
God  there  is  neither  number,  nor  multitude,  nor  negation ; 
but  pure  affirmation,  the  plenitude  of  being:  'I  am  who 
am.'  "8  "All  things  are  in  God  and  of  God;  for  out  of 
Him  and  without  Him  there  is  nothing."9  Negation 
asserts  nothing;  .  .  .  therefore  negation  has  no 


JThe  Erfurt  manuscript,  col.  3,  as  given  in  Archiv  II. 

'Pfeiffer,  527,  12;  263,  7. 

•Pfeiffer,  263,  10;    108,  28. 

4Erfurt,    col.    6. 

"Pfeiffer,  162,  37;  163,  2. 

"St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  XIII.  a.  11. 

7Erfurt,  cols.  138,  139. 

"Erfurt,  cols.  128,  52;    Pfeiffer,  276,  35. 

•Pfeiffer,  162,  38;  169,  19. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  43 

place  in  God,  for  He  is  who  is.7'10  Since  God  is  His  own 
existence,  is  absolute  being,  there  can  be  no  accidental 
qualities  in  God.11  Hence  Eckehart  continues,  "Acci- 
dent has  no  place  in  God.  In  Himself  he  is  a  pure  being, 
where  there  is  neither  this  nor  that,  for  all  that  is  in 
God,  is  God."12  "The  'I'  indicates  a  subject  without  any  ., 
accident,  besides  accident  of  itself  passes  into  substance. 
The  reason  is  that  the  same  being  is  in  the  subject  of 
every  accident  with  the  very  being  of  the  subject.  But  in 
the  first  place  being  is  substance  itself;  therefore,  every 
accident  in  God  passes  into  substance. "13 

With  the  scholastics,  however,  Eckehart  excepts  only 
relation  and  says:  "And  thus  there  remain  only  two  pre- 
dicaments in  the  Deity,  substance  and  relation. "14  "The 
'I'  signifies  pure  substance,  but  pure  without  any  acci- 
dent, without  anything  else;  substance  without  quality 
and  without  this  or  that  form.  But  this  pertains  to  God 
and  to  Him  alone,  who  is  above  accident,  above  species, 
above  genus;  and  of  Him  alone  is  it  said."15  Thus  we 
come  to  know  what  Eckehart  understands  by  purum  esse. 
In  creatures  composed  of  matter  and  form,  the  nature 
is  not  the  same  as  the  individual  whose  existence  is  caused 
by  some  exterior  agent;  hence  in  creatures  essence  and 
existence  must  differ;16  but  in  God,  the  first  efficient 
Cause,  it  is  impossible  that  existence  should  differ  from 
essence.  This  truth  Eckehart  shows  clearly  in  his  com- 
mentary on  the  scriptural  text,  "I  am  who  am."  "The 
'am'  is  predicated  of  a  proposition  that  says,  *I  am';  and 
secundum  adiacens  because  as  often  as  it  is  expressed,  it 
signifies  pure  and  simple  being  in  the  subject,  and  con- 
cerning the  subject,  and  is  itself  the  subject ;  .  .  .  it  is 
evident  that  the  same  essence  and  being  pertain  to  God 

10Erfurt,  cols.  78,  52. 

nSt.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  III.     a.  6. 

12Pfeiffer,  99,  19. 

"Erfurt,  col.  58. 

"Erfurt,  col.  58;  Pfeiffer,  608,  10. 

"Erfurt,  col.  52;  Archiv  II,  pp.  437-438. 

16St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  III.  a.  3,  4. 


44  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

alone,  whose  essence,  as  Avicenna  says,  is  His  existence. 
He  has  not  essence  apart  from  existence  which  denotes 
being. "17  "As  in  every  creature  the  being  which  it  has 
from  another  is  one  thing,  and  the  essence  which  it  has 
not  from  another  is  something  else;  therefore  there  is 
one  question  concerning  the  existence  of  being,  and  an- 
other question  (what  it  is)  concerning  the  essence  or 
nature  of  the  thing  itself.  Wherefore,  to  him  who  asks 
what  is  man  or  what  is  an  angel,  it  is  stupid  to  answer,  a 
human  being  or  an  angelic  being.  But  concerning  God, 
whose  existence  is  His  very  essence  (quidditas),  it  is 
proper  to  answer  the  question  who  or  what  is  God,  with — 
God  is ;  for  the  being  of  God  is  His  essence.  "18 

Not  only  is  God  alone  properly  being,  but  because  He 
is  being,  Eckehart  states  in  common  with  the  scholastics, 
that  He  is  necessarily  one,  true,  and  good.  "In  His  being 
there  is  nothing  but  the  contentment  of  unity. "19  "Who- 
ever tends  toward  anything  that  is  not  God,  cannot  enter 
into  the  unity  of  God."20  "This  unity  is  a  negation  of 
negation,  because  it  is  attributed  to  God  who  alone  is  the 
first  being  and  the  plenitude  of  being,  of  whom  nothing 
can  be  denied  and  in  whom  every  being  pre-existed  and  is 
included.  "21 

Of  the  next  attribute,  that  of  truth,  Eckehart  says: 
"God  is  truth,  and  all  that  is  in  time,  or  all  that  God  ever 
created,  is  not  the  truth."22  "What  creatures  really  are, 
that  they  are  in  God,  and  therefore  God  alone  is  in  the 
truth;  and  therefore  the  'I9  (I  shall  send  my  angel)  de- 
notes the  essence  of  divine  truth."23  "The  intellect  will 
never  rest  save  in  the  substantial  truth  which  includes 
all  things."24 


7Erfurt,  col.  52. 
8Erfurt,  col.  53. 
"Preiffer,  533,  30. 
°Pfeiffer,  525,  30;  524,  30. 
Erfurt,  col.  6;  Pfeiffer,  322,  15-23. 
2Pfeiffer,  57,  33. 
23Pfeiffer,  162,  40. 
"Pfeiffer,  21,  10. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  45 

Not  only  is  God  one  and  true,  but  He  is  likewise  good,  y 
In  affirmation  of  God's  goodness,  Eckehart  cites  first  Pro- 
clus  and  then  St.  Augustine  as  follows:  "And  Proclus 
says  in  the  twelfth  proposition,  'the  principle  and  the 
first  cause  of  every  being  is  goodness.'  To  this  he  adds 
that  Dionysius  lays  down  good  as  the  first  name  of  God ; 
and  St.  Augustine  (On  the  Trinity  VIII,  3)  says :  'Eegard 
good  itself,  if  thou  canst ;  so  wilt  thou  see  God,  not  good 
by  a  good  that  is  other  than  Himself,  but  the  good  of  all 
good.'  '25  Eckehart  frequently  refers  in  his  sermons  to 
the  goodness  of  God.  "The  soul  is  so  attracted  to  good- 
ness, that  God  must  occasionally  conceal  Himself.  .  .  . 
If  that  good  which  is  God,  were  immediately  and  con- 
tinually revealed  to  the  soul,  it  could  not  turn  away  from 
it  to  inform  the  body."26  "Nothing  is  good  but  God^ 
alone."27  "For  no  one  is  good  or  possesses  any  goodness 
but  from  Him  alone."28  "When  our  divine  Eedeemer 
told  the  faithful  servant  to  enter  into  the  joy  of  his  Lord 
and  that  He  would  place  him  over  all  His  goods,  He 
really  meant:  Go  out  from  all  created  goodness,  and 
out  of  all  divided  goodness,  and  out  of  all  complex  good- 
ness. I  shall  place  thee  above  all  this  in  the  uncreated, 
undivided,  and  simple  goodness,  which  I  am  myself."29 
"Goodness  is  a  garment  under  which  God  is  concealed. 
.  .  .  If  there  were  no  goodness  in  God,  my  will  should 
not  desire  Him."30  "Do  not  love  this  or  that  good,  rather 
love  goodness  for  the  sake  of  goodness;  for  all  things 
are  desirable  or  joyful  only  in  the  proportion  in  which 
God  dwells  in  them.  .  .  .  Love  Him  for  the  goodness 
which  He  is  in  Himself. ' m 

Since  God  is  not  only  the  plenitude  of  being  but  being 
itself,  in  whom  every  being  pre-existed  and  is  included, 

25Erfurt,  col.  7. 
26Pfeiffer,  17,  28. 
27Pfeiffer,  184,  33. 
28Pfeiffer,  188,  4. 
29Pfeiffer,  188,  16. 
30Pfeiffer,  270,  34. 
"Pfeiffer,  197,  21. 


46  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

Eckehart  excludes  every  non-being  from  God  and  there- 
fore every  imperfection.  Hence  lie  naturally  passes  from 
the  idea  of  plenitude  to  that  of  the  infinity  of  God.  ' '  God 
is  infinite  truth,  and  goodness,  and  infinite  being. " 
Since  God  is  infinite  perfection  He  is  also  immutable. 
"With  God  there  is  neither  change  nor  shadow  of  altera- 
tion. For  every  change  is  a  shadow  of  His  being. ' '  In 
the  treatise  on  Detachment  Eckehart  has  a  fine  passage 
on  the  immutability  of  God.  "When  something  occurs,  a 
fact  which  God  foresaw  from  all  eternity,  then  people 
imagine  that  God  has  changed.  When  He  is  angry  with 
us  or  confers  on  us  some  benefit,  it  is  we  who  change,  but 
He  remains  unchanged;  just  as  the  sunlight  remains  the 
same  although  it  may  injure  weak  eyes  and  strengthen 
healthy  ones.  God  does  not  look  out  into  time,  neither 
does  anything  new  take  place  in  His  sight.  .  .  .  No 
new  will  ever  arose  in  God;  even  if  creation  was  not 
always  what  it  is  now,  it  was  from  eternity  in  God  and  in 
His  intellect."34  "It  is  God's  attribute  to  remain  un- 
changed in  His  simple  being,"35  "whose  property  is  im- 
mutability, whereas  creatures  are  subject  to  measure,  and 
number,  and  change."36  "God  with  whom  there  is  no 
change  is  above  motion  and  time."37 

There  is  no  motion  in  God  because  in  Him  there  is  no 
potentiality,  only  actuality;  God  is  actus  purus — pure 
actuality.  "The  work  of  God  is  His  being."38  "Being 
inasmuch  as  it  is  first  and  immobile  is  at  rest,  because 
immobile  being  is  prior  to  mobile  being.  On  the  other 
hand,  being  as  it  is  supreme  and  consequently  perfect,  is 
unmoved  and  at  rest,  for  motion  is  an  act  of  imperfec- 
tion; but  in  God  there  is  no  imperfection.  He  is  the 
plenitude  of  being."39  "Without  lapse  of  time,  in  an 

82Erfurt,  col.  71. 

8SErfurt,  col.  122. 

"Pfeiffer,  488,  7. 

3BPfeiffer,  225,  20. 

88Erfurt,  col.  157;  Pfeiffer,  321,  8. 

37Pfeiffer,  133,  26. 

"Erfurt,  col.  35. 

38Erfurt,  col.  32. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  47 

instant,  God  accomplishes  all  that  He  does;  whereas  i 
the  case  of  secondary  agents,  motion  and  time  are  in- 
volved. "40  "With  God,  whose  power  is  His  act,  action 
and  effect  are  simultaneous.  "41  The  Cues  codex  em- 
phasizes still  more  strongly  that  potentiality  and  act 
do  not  differ  in  God.  "In  all  things  out  of  God,  sub- 
stance and  potentiality,  being  and  act,  differ.  . 
Every  being,  except  the  intellect  and  outside  the  intellect, 
is  a  creature,  is  creatable,  differs  from  God,  and  is  not 
God ;  for  in  God  actuality  and  potentiality  do  not  differ, 
which  they  invariably  do  in  created  being.  But  being,  or 
the  first  act,  is  the  first  division;  in  the  intellect,  in 
God,  there  is  no  division."42  Therefore,  since  God  is  pure 
actuality  and  since  He  is  immutable,  He  is  removed  from 
every  potentiality,  a  truth  which  St.  Thomas  expresses 
with  as  much  force  as  simplicity :  ' '  Everything  which  is  " 
in  any  way  changed,  is  in  some  way  a  potentiality.  Hence ^ 
it  is  evident  that  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  be  in  any 
way  changeable. ' M3 

*  As  a  consequence  of  this  principle  the  divine  genera- 
tion itself  must  be  without  motion,  which  Ecke- 
hart  states  thus:  "There  is  another  word  which  is 
unspoken  and  unthought,  and  which  never  comes  forth, 
but  which  remains  eternally  in  Him  who  utters  it.  In 
the  Father  who  utters  it,  it  is  an  emanation  and  at  the 
same  time  it  is  immanent.  "44  It  is  therefore  only  in  a 
metaphorical  sense  "that  we  attribute  matter,  form,  and 
work  to  God  on  account  of  the  grossness  of  our  senses."45 
To  illustrate  this  transference  of  motion  to  God,  Eckehart 
makes  use  of  the  same  example  as  St.  Thomas,  namely, 
that  of  the  builder.  "Looking  at  a  house  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  builder,  it  is,  as  it  were,  the  result  of  his 


*°Erfurt,  col.  34. 

"Erfurt,  col.  32. 

42The  Cues  manuscript,  Archiv  II,  p.  677. 

43Summa,  1  p.  qu.  IX,  a.  1. 

"Pfeiffer,    272,    1. 

45Pfeiffer,  513,  9;  cf.  St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  IX,  a.  1. 


48  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

own  action,  for  the  act  proceeds  from  him  as  an  activity ; 
but  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  material  used,  the  house 
is  passive ;  for  it  is  in  the  nature  of  these  two  genera- 
activity  and  passivity — that  the  one  is  contained  in  the 
other  and  that  they  both  form  one  thing :  simultaneously 
they  come  into  existence  and  simultaneously  they  pass 
away."46 

Since  God  is  immutable  and  since  He  is  above  all  time 
and  number,  He  is  therefore-in  an  eternal  now.  Hence 
when  speaking  of  that  power  in  the  soul  by  which  God 
draws  it  to  Himself,  Eckehart  says:  "God  is  in  this 
power  as  in  an  eternal  now.  If  the  spirit  were  always 
united  to  God  by  this  power,  man  would  never  grow  old. 
Because  the  now  in  which  God  created  the  first  man,  and 
the  now  in  which  the  last  human  being  will  pass  away,  as 
well  as  the  now  in  which  I  am  speaking,  are  all  alike  in 
God  and  form  only  one  now."47  "If  I  take  a  portion  of 
time,  it  is  either  yesterday  or  today.  But  if  I  take  now  it 
will  include  all  time."48  This  eternal  now  has  here  the 
same  significance  that  it  has  for  St.  Thomas,  who  states 
that  the  now  that  stands  still,  is  said  to  make  eternity 
according  to  our  comprehension.49  "Since  God  dwells 
unmoved  in  this  eternal  now,  the  soul  that  considers  time 
and  place  and  number,  is  in  a  bad  state  and  far  removed 
from  God."50  "Past  and  future  as  such  are  not  in  God 
nor  God  in  them. '  '51 

God's  infinite  perfection  and  being  so  far  transcend  all 
that  finite  reason  can  comprehend,  that  Eckehart  often 
describes  God's  being  negatively  and  hence  exposes  his 
doctrine  to  misinterpretation  and  heresy.  "The  first 
and  simple  being  is  properly  known  by  negatives."52 
'  *  God  is  better  than  one  can  think,  and  I  add,  God  is  some- 

46Erfurt,    col.    133. 

47Pfeiffer,  44,  10;  164,  20;  268,  18;  also  Erfurt,  col.  12. 

48Pfeiffer,    268,    16. 

49St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  X,  a,  2,  ad.  1. 

"'Pfeiffer,    266,    11,    32. 

81Erfurt,  col.  94.   Sievers,  op.  cit.,  p.  413. 

82Erfurt,  cols.  79,  49. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  49 

thing  I  know  not  what ;  He  is  all  that  it  is  better  to  be  than 
not  to  be.  ...  He  is  above  all  that  we  can  desire. 
When  I  preached  in  Paris  I  said,  and  I  could  well  afford 
to  say  it :  All  the  learned  men  of  Paris  could  not  compre- 
hand  what  God  is  in  the  smallest  creature,  yea,  not  even  in 
a  fly.  But  I  say  now,  that  the  whole  world  cannot  grasp 
it.  All  that  can  be  thought  of  God,  He  is  not.  That  which 
God  is  in  Himself,  no  one  can  know,  unless  he  be  lifted 
up  into  the  light  which  is  God  Himself. "53  "In  God  there 
is  neither  good,  nor  better,  nor  best.  Whoever  says  that 
God  is  good,  wrongs  Him  as  much  as  he  does  who  should 
call  the  sun  black.  "54  This  last  citation  contains  almost 
verbatim  the  twenty-eighth  proposition  condemned  by 
John  XXII  as  heretical.55  But  when  it  is  compared  with 
the  following  quotation  it  assumes  a  different  meaning. 
"God  is  nameless,  for  no  one  can  say  or  know  anything 
about  Him.  In  this  sense  a  pagan  master  said:  What- 
ever we  know  or  say  about  the  First  Cause  pertains  more 
to  ourselves  than  to  the  First  Cause,  for  He  transcends 
all  words  and  all  knowledge.  If  I  then  say  God  is  good, 
it  is  not  true ;  I  am  good,  God  is  not  good !  I  shall  proceed 
further — I  am  better  than  God!  For  only  what  is  good 
can  be  better ;  and  since  God  is  not  better,  He  cannot  be 
the  best.  Far  from  God  are  these  three  determinations, 
good,  better,  best ;  He  is  above  all  this.  If  I  continue  and  \ 
add,  God  is  wise,  it  is  not  true ;  I  am  wiser  than  He  is ! 
And  if  I  still  say,  God  is  a  being,  it  is  not  true;  He  is 
a  transcendent  being  and  a  supra-existing  nothingness ! 
.  Therefore,  be  silent  and  prate  no  more  about 
God."56 

In  accordance  with  Eckehart's  doctrine,  God  is  the  most 
absolutely  simple  being  and  this  to  such  an  extent  that 
every  distinction  is  excluded  from  Him ;  in  God  "  is  "  and  ^ 


63Pfeiffer,  169,  25. 
MPfeiffer,  269,  18. 

55Quod  deus  non  est  bonus  neque  melior  neque  optimus;   ita  male 
dico,  quandocunque  voco  deum  bonum,  ac  si  ego  album  vocarem  nigrum 
Tfeiffer,  318,  31;  268,  37. 


50  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

"is  not"  are  identical.  Nevertheless,  Eckehart  differen- 
tiates between  the  Godhead  and  God.  By  the  Godhead  he 
understands  the  abiding  potentiality  of  being,  containing 
within  itself  all  distinction  as  yet  undeveloped.  "When 
I  dwelt  in  the  ground  and  depth,  in  the  stream  and  source 
of  the  Godhead,  nobody  asked  me  whither  I  was  going 
or  what  I  was  doing,  for  there  was  no  one  who  could 
have  asked  me.  Only  after  I  emanated  thence  did  all 
creatures  proclaim  God  to  me.  .  .  .  Thus  all  creatures 
speak  of  God ;  and  why  do  they  not  speak  of  the  Godhead  ? 
All  that  is  in  God  is  one,  and  of  that  nothing  can  be  said. 
Only  God  acts,  the  Godhead  does  not  act;  there  is  no 
operation  there.  God  and  Godhead  differ  as  doing  and 
non-doing.7'57  Eckehart  represents  the  Godhead  as  an 
eternal  immutable  calm —  "He  dwells  in  a  stillness  which 
transcends  every  form,"58  in  which  there  is  no  activity. 
"Therefore,  the  soul  can  be  perfectly  happy  only  by  cast- 
ing itself  into  the  formless  Godhead,  where  there  is 
neither  operation  nor  image,  and  by  losing  and  burying 
itself  in  this  desert,"59  in  which,  as  it  were,  God  is  con- 
cealed from  and  unknown  to  Himself,  whereas  in  the 
Trinity  He  reveals  Himself  as  a  living  light.60 

The  Latin  writings  of  Eckehart  that  have  come  down 
to  us  contain  very  little  on  the  Trinity.  In  regard  to  this 
fundamental  mystery  his  teaching  is  as  follows :  ' '  There 
are  two  predicates  in  God,  substance  and  a  reflection, 
which  is  called  relation.  Now  the  masters  say,  that  the 
Father's  essence  does  not  produce  the  Son  in  the  God- 
head, because  the  Father  according  to  His  nature  be- 
holds all  things  in  His  pure  essence,  and  He  sees  Himself 
therein  with  all  His  power,  without  the  Son  and 
without  the  Holy  Ghost,  He  sees  only  the  unity  of  His 
essence.  But  when  the  Father  wishes  to  have  a  reflection 
of  Himself  in  another  person,  then  He  brings  forth  the 


"Pfeiffer,  181,  4;  281,  20;  234,  21. 
58Biittner,  op.  cit,  p.  187. 
'"Pfeiffer,  242,  1. 
"opfeiffer,  499,  14. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  51 

Son  in  this  reflection ;  since  He  is  so  rejoiced  at  this  reflec- 
tion, and  since  all  joy  has  been  His  eternally,  therefore, 
this  reflection  must  be  eternal.  Hence  the  Son  is  as  eter- 
nal as  the  Father ;  and  this  pleasure  which  the  Father  and 
the  Son  mutually  enjoy  is  the  Holy  Spirit ;  as  this  love  be- 
tween the  Father  and  the  Son  has  been  eternal,  therefore 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  as  eternal  as  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
The  three  persons  have  but  one  essence,  but  are  different 
as  regards  the  persons ;  for  the  person  of  the  Father  was 
never  the  person  of  the  Son  nor  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
All  three  are  distinct  in  regard  to  the  persons  and  are 
nevertheless  one  in  their  essence."61  "In  God  there  are  but 
two  predicates,  substance  and  relation ;  substance  by  rea- 
son of  its  being  is  not  diffusive ;  it  exists  only  for  itself 
and  for  nothing  else  and  it  considers  being  only  in  rela- 
tion to  itself.  ...  As  the  saints  and  doctors  express 
it,  essence  does  not  generate  in  the  Divinity.  For  the 
doctors  ordinarily  say  that  the  cause  of  generation  is 
not  essence  but  essence  and  relation.  But  to  decide  which 
is  really  prior  in  time  is  a  difficult  question.  Hence  rela- 
tion is  necessary,  because  of  its  diffusion  and  fecundity 
in  the  Divinity.  And  this  is  what  Boethius  says:  the 
essence  contains  the  unity,  but  the  relation  expresses 
itself  in  the  Trinity.  .  .  .  For  the  Father  did  not 
utter  the  Word  or  generate  the  Son  forasmuch  as  He  is 
essence  or  substance,  but  inasmuch  as  He  is  the  begin- 
ning. This  is  generally  interpreted  that  the  Word  was 
in  the  beginning,  that  is  in  the  Father.  But  beginning 
as  the  first,  denotes  relation  of  order  and  origin.  For  in 
De  Causis  it  is  said,  the  first  being  is  self-sufficient.1 
Primum,  not  prius,  because  by  reason  of  the  relation  or 
order  God  possesses  diffusion  or  fecundity  as  much  in 
the  Divinity  as  in  creatures."62 

This  same  doctrine  Eckehart  repeats  continually  in 
many  places  of  his  sermons  and  treatises;  thus  he  ex- 

61Pfeiffer,  608,  10. 
82Erfurt,  cols.  58,  59. 


52  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

pounds  the  text  of  St.  John,  "I  saw  the  Word  in  God": 
* '  God  is  pure  being,  pure  intellect ;  He  knows  Himself  in 
Himself.  St.  John  means  that  the  Son  is  in  the  nature  of 
the  Father.  'I  saw  the  Word  in  God;'  there  he  signifies 
that  the  intellect  which  is  eternal  in  God,  proceeded  from 
God  in  a  distinction  of  persons,  which  is  the  Son.  'I  saw 
the  Word  before  God;'  that  is,  that  the  Son  is  eternally 
born  of  the  Father  and  is  an  image  of  Him."63  That 
there  must  necessarily  be  more  than  one  person  in  God, 
he  explains  as  follows :  i  i  Their  eternal  origin  is  the 
Father,  and  the  idea  of  all  things  in  Him  is  the  Son,  the 
'Jove  for  this  idea  or  image  is  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence  if 
the  Framer  of  all  things  had  not  dwelt  eternally  in  the 
Father,  the  Father  could  not  have  created.  This  is  said 
on  account  of  the  infinite  power  of  the  Father;  hence 
there  must  be  more  than  one  person,  because  all  creatures 
emanated  in  the  eternal  emanation  of  the  Son  and  not  of 
themselves."64 

Among  the  condemned  articles  there  are  two  that  relate 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Blessed  Trinity.  "God  is  one  in 
[every  way  and  according  to  every  idea,  so  that  it  would 
be  impossible  to  find  in  Him  anything  like  number,  either 
within  or  without  His  intellect.  He  who  sees  two  or  a 
distinction  does  not  see  God,  for  God  is  one  beyond  and 
above  number,  nor  does  He  compare  in  number  with  any- 
one. Therefore,  there  can  be  no  difference  between  being 
and  being  understood."65  This  last  proposition  taken 
from  the  Exposition  on  Exodus  forms  the  twenty-third 
condemned  article,66  as  it  does  away  with  the  distinction 
of  the  three  Divine  Persons.  A  similar  error  is  con- 


63Pfeiffer,  527,  12;  530,  14.  Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches  Altertum,  VIII, 
p.  241. 

64Pfeiffer,  Zeitschrift  fur  deutches  Altertum  VIII,  p.  248;  Erfurt, 
col.  97. 

65Cues  manuscript,  Archiv  II,  p.  683. 

66Deus  est  unus  omnibus  modis  et  secundum  omnem  rationem,  ita 
ut  in  ipso  non  sit  invenire  aliquam  multitudinem  in  intellectu  vel 
extra  intellectum;  qui  enim  duo  videt  vel  distinctionem  videt,  deurn  non 
videt,  deus  enim  unus  est  extra  numerum  et  supra  numerum,  nee  ponit 
in  unum  cum  aliquo.  Sequitur:  nulla  igitur  distinctio  in  ipso  deo  esse 
potest  aut  intelligi. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  53 

tained  in  the  twenty-fourth  article :  ' i  Every  distinction  is 
foreign  to  God  and  is  found  neither  in  His  nature  nor  in 
His  persons;  this  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  His  very 
nature  is  one  and  the  same,  and  each  person  is  one  and  the 
same  as  His  nature.  "67  Here  is  an  instance  of  Eckehart 's 
extravagant  and  unsystematic  thinking  which  led  him  to 
deny  the  plurality  of  persons  in  God. 

In  summing  up  Eckehart 's  doctrine  on  the  nature, 
unity,  and  Trinity  of  God  we  note,  that  "esse  est  Deus" — 
God  is  being — is  the  fundamental  proposition  on  which 
he  bases  his  theology,  a  proposition  which  no  scho- 
lastic before  his  time  used  so  extensively.  This  Divine 
Being  is  with  Eckehart,  as  with  the  scholastics,  an 
esse  purum  et  plenum — the  purity  and  plenitude  of 
being,  in  whom  there  are  but  two  predicaments,  substance  V^ 
and  relation.  God,  because  He  is  pure  being,  is  neces- 
sarily one,  true  and  good;  and  because  He  is  the  pleni- 
tude of  being,  there  can  be  no  imperfection  in  Him,  there- 
fore, no  motion.  He  is,  consequently,  pure  actuality;  in 
Him  actuality  and  potentiality  do  not  differ.  If  Eckehart 
is  anywhere  a  scholastic  it  is  in  his  doctrine  of  the  Blessed 
Trinity.  The  Father  is  unbegotten ;  the  Son  is  generated 
by  the  Father  because  He  proceeds  from  the  Father  by 
way  of  intelligible  action  and  of  similitude,  for  the  concept 
of  the  intellect  is  a  likeness  or  an  image  of  the  object  con- 
ceived ;  hence  the  Son  is  called  by  Eckehart  the  Word  and 
the  Image.  The  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son  not  by  way  of  generation  but  of  procession,  as 
spirit.  He  is  the  mutual  love  of  the  Father  and  the  Son ; 
hence  Eckehart  applies  the  names  of  love  and  gift  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.68  As  regards  their  essence  the  three  Divine 
Persons  fp*m  one  unity  free  from  every  distinction, 
whereas  their  relation  expresses  itself  in  the  Trinity.  No 
other  doctrine  appears  so  frequently  in  the  German 


6TOmnis  distinctio  est  a  deo  aliena,  neque  in  natura  neque  In 
personis;  probatur:  quia  natura  ipsa  est  una  et  hoc  uftum,  et  quelibet 
persona  est  una  et  id  ipsum  unum,  quod  natura. 

"Pfeiffer,  265,  31;  146,  6;  365,  25;  132,  3.       '#• 

VERSITY 

V  OF 


54  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

works.  There  is  hardly  a  sermon  or  a  treatise  in  which 
reference  is  not  made  to  the  Blessed  Trinity,  either  in 
connection  with  the  nature  of  the  soul  or  with  Eckehart 's 
favorite  topic — the  divine  generation  in  the  soul  of  the 
just. 

Thus  on  all  essential  points  Eckehart  is  a  true  scholas- 
tic, as  to  both  content  and  formulae.  But  he  is  also  a 
mystic,  this  more  particularly  in  the  German  writings, 
where  he  almost  invariably  adds  several  mystical  inter- 
pretations to  the  scholastic  teaching,  whether  he  speaks  of 
the  nature  of  God,  of  His  unity,  of  the  Trinity,  of  His 
goodness,  His  immutability  or  any  other  divine  perfec- 
tion. It  is,  moreover,  in  accord  with  the  nature  of  mystic 
intuition  that  transcending  the  attributes  and  relations 
of  God,  Eckehart  should  seek  to  penetrate  into  His  very 
being,  even  to  differentiate  between  God  and  Godhead. 
When  speaking  of  the  goodness  of  God  it  was  noted  how 
his  love  of  paradoxes  led  him  into  error,  unconsciously, 
it  is  true,  as  parallel  passages  prove.  At  other  times 
it  is  his  unsystematic  thinking  as  well  as  his  somewhat 
obscure  style  that  are  the  causes  of  his  heterodoxy.  Thus 
he  carries  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  to  the  extreme 
of  denying  the  plurality  and  the  distinction  of  the  Divine 
Persons. 


CHAPTEE  V 

THE   CREATION 

1.  The  Divine  Ideas 

Eckehart  's  doctrine  of  the  causes  or  ideas  of  creatures 
follows  scholastic  teaching  in  general.  He  admits  a 
twofold  being  in  creatures:  " Every  creature  has  one 
being  in  its  original  cause,  that  is  in  the  word  of  God, 
.  .  .  and  another  being  in  the  things  of  nature  where 
each  has  its  peculiar  form.  The  first  is  virtual  being,  the 
other  formal  being  which  is  generally  weak  and  change- 
able."1 "All  things  are  nobler  in  God  than  they  are  in 
themselves,  "2  because  the  virtual  being  of  anything, 
namely  that  which  it  has  in  God,  is  more  elevated  and 
excellent  than  its  formal  being  or  the  source  of  its 
actuality.3 

What  Eckehart  understands  by  the  virtual  being  of 
creatures,  he  clearly  points  out  in  the  following:  "The 
effect  always  pre-exists  in  its  essential  cause;  and  the 
simpler,  the  more  uniform,  and  the  more  unique  a  thing 
is,  the  higher  is  its  cause."4  "For  all  things  are  intellec- 
tually in  God  as  in  their  First  Cause  and  Creator.  Hence 
they  cannot  have  their  formal  being  unless  an  efficient 
cause  draws  them  forth  by  giving  them  a  real  existence."6 
This  ideal  existence  or  prototype  of  things  in  God  is  ren- 
dered more  intelligible  by  the  fact  that  the  mind  usually 
possesses  some  preconceived  image  of  the  object  not  as 
it  actually  is,  but  as  it  appears  in  the  intellect.  The  fa- 
vorite example  of  the  schoolmen  to  illustrate  this  truth  is 
that  of  the  architect  or  builder,  who  aims  at  making  the 
material  house  resemble  as  closely  as  possible  the  image 
that  exists  in  his  intellect.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  Ecke- 


'Erfurt,  col.  20. 

2Pfeiffer,  530,  8;  321,  14. 

3Erfurt,  col.  22. 

"Erfurt,  col.  27;  cf.  St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  IV.,  a  2. 

"Erfurt,  col.  90. 


55 


56  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

hart  continues:  "When  God  created  the  world  . 
He  created  all  things  according  to  the  active  intellect  of 
His  Being ;  hence  there  must  have  been  an  eternal  idea  or 
prototype  in  the  Divine  intelligence  according  to  which 
God  created  all  things/'6  Hence  also:  "Everything  is 
\hidden  and  latent  in  its  cause ;"7  and,  therefore,  "things 
in  Him  are  the  causes  of  things  actually  existing. "8  "The 
cause  of  a  thing  is  prior  to  and  more  excellent  than  the 
thing  itself,  because  it  is  the  beginning  and  the  cause  of 
it.  Hence  l  in  the  beginning  was  the  Word. '  The  Greek 
has  Xoyos,  the  Latin  ratio  or  idea;  this  cause  is  always 
prior  to  the  thing  itself,  and  the  thing  does  not  include 
the  cause  but  the  cause  includes  the  thing. '  '9 

Eckehart  repeatedly  speaks  of  the  Word  as  the  ratio 
rei — the  cause  of  things.  ' i  God  uttered  a  word,  that  was 
the  knowledge  of  Himself  or  the  Son.  With  that  eternal 
knowledge  He  knew  all  things  and  understood  how  to 
create  them  out  of  nothing,  which  they  are  in  themselves. 
But  while  they  were  eternally  in  Him  they  were  not 
individual  existences  .  .  .  He  was.  For  God  can 
be  God  only  and  nothing  else.  Therefore,  all  creatures 
are  a  light,  because  they  are  known  in  the  light  of  unity 
and  of  eternity.  Therefore,  too,  all  creatures  emanate 
as  a  light  to  reveal  the  hidden  light."10  "When  God  cre- 
ated the  world  He  did  not  look  without  for  the  ideas  of 
creation.  This  is  then  the  origin,  the  cause,  as  it  is  called, 
of  ideas  according  to  which  God  created,  contemplating 
nothing  from  without.  .  .  .  Hence  the  saints  com- 
monly explain  that  in  the  beginning  God  created  heaven 
and  earth,  that  is  in  the  Son  who  is  the  image  and  cause 
of  ideas;  whoever  denies  this,  denies  the  Son  of  God. 
Thus  God  in  the  beginning  created  all  things,  that  is  in 
the  cause  and  according  to  the  ideal  cause."11  "The  bright 

"Pfeiffer,  325,  23;  326,  11;  cf.  St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  XV,  a.  1. 

7Erfurt,  cols.  68,  16.    Pfeiffer,  333,  10. 

"Erfurt,  col.  90;  Pfeiffer,  529,  18. 

9Erfurt,  col.  67;  cf.  St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  VIII,  a.  1. 

"Pfeiffer,  Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches  Altertum,  VIII,  p.  239. 

"Erfurt,  col.  12. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  57 

mirror  of  eternity  is  the  eternal  intellect  of  the  Father. 
In  this  the  Father  forms  an  image  of  Himself,  the  Son,  in 
whom  all  things  are  reflected,  but  not  as  creatures,  for 
nothing  is  there  but  God  in  God."12 

It  is  evident  that  Eckehart  identifies  the  Word  with  the*) 
divine  ideas  and  as  the  Word  is  eternal,  so  also  are  the 
ideas  eternal.  This  he  distinctly  teaches  in  many  places. 
"All  things  emanated  in  the  eternal  emanation  of  the 
Son  from  the  Father."13  Here,  Denifle  says,14  is  the  an- 
swer to  the  older  scholastics  who  ask,  whether  the  Word 
connotes  some  effect  in  creatures.  Eckehart,  in  fact, 
says:  "The  Father's  utterance  produced  the  Word  and 
creatures."15  "The  Father  spoke  one  word,  that  was  the 
Son.  But  in  that  one  word  He  spoke  all  things."16 

The  ideas  are  not,  according  to  Eckehart,  the  realiza- 
tions of  a  divine  will,  an  arbitrary  creation  of  God ;  they 
are  the  eternal  thoughts  of  God  and  therefore  uncreated 
like  God  Himself.  "The  causes  of  creatures  are  not 
creatures,  nor  are  they  creatable  as  such,  for  they  are 
ante  rem  and  post  rem>  they  are  the  original  causes  of 
the  things  themselves."17  Here  Eckehart  differs  essen- 
tially from  Eriugena  in  identifying  the  Word  with  the 
divine  ideas,  and,  consequently,  considering  them  as  un- 
created. Eriugena,  on  the  contrary,  does  not  recognize  the 
second  nature,  that  is  the  aggregate  of  ideas  in  the  Divine 
Word,  in  so  far  as  they  are  primordial  causes,  as  the  Sec- 
ond Person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity.  He  asserts  that  the 
Son  is  begotten  from  all  eternity ;  from  all  eternity,  too, 
the  primordial  causes  were  made — natura  quae  creatur 
et  creat.  Preger  states  that  Eckehart  teaches  the  crea- 
tion of  the  ideal  world  out  of  nothing,  and  therefore  time 
begins  with  the  creation  of  the  ideal  world.18  But  Ecke- 


12Pfeiffer,  378,  37;  Erfurt,  cols.  12,  13. 

"Pfeiffer   Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches  Altertum  VIII,  p.  248;   Erfurt, 
cols.  12,  14. 

"Denifle,  op.  cit,  II,  p.  464. 

1BErfurt,  col.  69. 

16Sievers,  Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches  Altertum  XV,  p.  414. 

"Erfurt,  col.  90. 

18Preger,  op.  cit.,  pp.  392-395. 


58  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

hart  in  reality  asserts  the  contrary  doctrine.  The  ideas 
are  eternal  and  time  begins  only  with  the  creation  of  the 
exterior  world,  that  is  the  world  of  reality. 

2.  The  Creation  of  the  World 

In  the  Prologue  to  the  Opus  tripartitum™  Eckehart 
gives  four  different  interpretations  of  the  scriptural  text 
1  i  In  the  beginning  God  created  heaven  and  earth ' '  ( Gen. 
I.  1)  namely:  (1)  God  and  God  alone  created  heaven 
and  earth,  that  is  the  highest  and  the  lowest,  consequently 
all  things.  (2)  He  created  in  the  beginning,  that  is,  in 
Himself.  (3)  He  certainly  created  in  the  past  and  is 
nevertheless  always  in  the  beginning  of  creation.  (4) 
Creation  and  every  work  of  God  was  in  the  very  begin- 
ning of  creation  at  once  perfect  and  complete. 

As  regards  the  first  interpretation,  that  God  created 
all  things,  Eckehart  teaches :  ' '  Creation  is  a  collection  of 
being;  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  add  out  of  nothing,  be- 
cause before  being  there  is  only  nothing."20  "God  cre- 
ated the  world  and  all  things  in  the  world. >m  "In  the 
second  place  it  is  said,  that  He  created  in  the  beginning, 
that  is  in  Himself.  .  .  .  Creation  gives  or  confers 
being.  But  being  is  the  beginning  and  the  first  before 
which  and  without  which  there  is  nothing. M22  "  The  First 
Cause  produces  every  effect  of  Himself  and  in  Himself. 
The  reason  is  that  apart  from  the  First  Cause  there  is 
nothing.  .  .  .  It  is  evident  that  every  creature  of 
itself  and  in  itself  is  created  by  God  and  in  God.  "23  "  Cre- 
ation is  something  produced  from  nothing.  As  a  mar, 
is  made  from  a  non-man  and  being  in  general  from  non- 
being,  and  what  is  opposed  in  nature  from  its  opposite ; 
so  the  creation  by  the  first  and  highest  Agent  necessarily 
^produces  a  simple  being  from  a  simple  non-being. ' m 

'"Erfurt,  col.  4. 
20Erfurt,  cols.  4,  14. 

2:Sievers,  op.  cit.,  p.  386;  Pfeiffer,  Zeitschrift  fiir  deutsches  Altertum 
VIII,  p.  239. 

22Erfurt,  cols.  4,  14. 

23Erfurt,  col.  73;  Pfeiffer,  528,  33. 

24Erfurt,  col.  91;  cf.  St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.    XLV,  a.  1. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  59 

For  the  significance  of  the  ex  nihilo — out  of  nothing — 
Eckehart  follows  St.  Thomas,  who  states  that  the  ex  does 
not  signify  the  material  cause  but  only  the  order,  "by 
stating  the  relation  between  what  is  now  and  its  previous 
non-existence."25  This  is  Eckehart 's  meaning  when  he 
observes:  "But  God  and  He  alone  produces  all  things 
out  of  nothing  and  not  from  something  else  that  was  prior 
thereto."26  "The  nothing  we  were  before  coming  into 
existence,  was  in  need  of  nothing  and  withstood  all  cre- 
ated being;  the  Divine  power  which  alone  is  above  all 
things,  gave  motion  to  the  nothing  when  God  created  all 
things  out  of  nothing.  >m 

As  omnipotent  power  alone  could  produce  being  out  of 
nothing,  in  the  same  way  omnipotence  alone  can  preserve 
creatures  in  their  being.  i '  The  First  Cause,  which  is  God, 
exerts  its  influence  no  less  by  preserving  the  effect  in 
being  than  by  bringing  it  into  being ;  and  conversely,  the 
effect,  although  complete,  depends  on  the  First  Cause  no 
less  for  its  continuation  than  for  its  existence.  "28  As 
Eckehart  assigns  paternity  to  God  as  a  characteristic 
belonging  to  the  Creator  of  all  things,  so  does  he  also 
assign  maternity  to  Him,  because  from  Him  all  creatures 
receive  their  being  and  are  preserved  in  being;  hence 
whatever  falls  away  from  God  falls  necessarily  into  noth- 
ingness.29 In  this  he  again  follows  St.  Thomas30  who 
teaches  that  no  creature  could  subsist  for  a  moment  if 
not  kept  in  being  by  the  operation  of  Divine  power,  and 
like  him  uses  the  example  of  a  builder,  "who  is  not  the 
cause  of  the  being  of  the  house,  but  the  cause  that  the 
house  is  built. "31  "As  soon  as  a  house  is  constructed 
the  builder  leaves  it,  since  he  is  not  the  immediate  cause 
of  the  house,  for  he  takes  the  materials  from  nature ;  but 

25St.  Thomas.  1  p.  qu.  XLV,  a.  1,  ad.  3. 

26Erfurt,  col.  144. 

27Pfeiffer,  509,  29. 

28Erfurt,  cols.  73,  74. 

"PfeifCer,  610,  29;   Erfurt,  col.  132. 

s°St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.    CIV,  a.  1. 

81Erfurt,  col.  133. 


60  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

:  God  gives  immediately  to  the  creature  all  that  it  is,  both 
matter  and  form,  and  therefore  He  must  remain  in  the 
creature  else  it  would  fall  away  from  its  being. ' m 

That  very  part  of  Eckehart 's  system  where  clearness 
is  most  needed  to  avoid  error,  is  unfortunately  the  most 
obscure — the  immanence  of  God  in  creatures.  In  speak- 
ing of  the  nature  of  God,  Eckehart  teaches  that  in  God 
esse  et  essentia — being  and  essence — are  identical,  where- 
as in  creatures  they  differ :  "  In  every  creature  the  being 
is  that  which  it  receives  from  another ;  the  essence  which 
it  has  not  from  another  is  something  different."33  This 
esse  he  considers  as  something  abstract;  it  is  not  clear 
whether  or  not  he  regards  it  as  identical  with  the  divine 
esse.  This  uncertainty  causes  a  great  divergence  of 
opinion  as  to  whether  Eckehart  is  a  pantheist  or  not. 
Preger  will  not  admit  any  pantheism  in  Eckehart 's  doc- 
trine concerning  the  creation.34  In  direct  opposition  to 
him  is  Ch.  Schmidt  who  asserts:  "Meister  Eckehart 
speaks  not  only  of  an  ideal  existence  of  things  in  the 
Divine  intellect,  but  also  of  a  real  objective  being  of 
things  in  the  very  being  of  God,  or  rather  of  the  absolute 
unity  of  being:  that  is  to  say,  he  teaches  the  identity  of 
God  and  the  world.  ...  He  thus  establishes  the  most 
absolute  pantheism  in  his  double  but  identical  expression : 
'God  is  all  and  all  is  God.7  "3B  Several  modern  students 
of  Eckehart,  such  as  Grabmann,36  von  Hiigel,37  Langen- 
berg,38  and  Lichtenberger39  agree  with  the  conclusion 
drawn  by  Denifle,40  whose  argument  is  outlined  as  fol- 

32Pfeiffer,  611,  1. 

83Erfurt,  cols.  53,  90. 

"Preger,  op.  cit,  p.  396. 

"Schmidt,  op.  cit,  p.  266. 

36Grabmann,  Die  Lehre  des  hi.  Thomas  von  der  Scintilla  Animae. 
Jahrbuch  fur  Philosophic  und  speculative  Theologie  p.  414.  Paderborn 
1900. 

"Von  Hiigel,  The  Mystical  Element  of  Religion  II,  p.  317.  London 
1909. 

88Langenberg,  Quellen  und  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  der 
deutschen  Mystik,  p.  182.  Bonn,  1902. 

"Lichtenberger,  Le  Mysticisme  allemand.  Revue  des  Cours  et  Con- 
ferences, p.  443.  Paris,  1910. 

40 Among  those  who  differ  essentially    from    Denifle    are:      Bach, 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  61 

lows:  Eckehart  does  not  distinguish  clearly  between  the 
esse  of  God  and  the  esse  of  creatures.  He  says:  "What 
is  so  near  to  being  itself,  which  is  God,  as  existence?  Or 
what  is  so  intimately  related  as  existence  and  being,  be- 
tween which  there  is  no  medium  ?"41  Eckehart  does  not 
discriminate  between  the  two  ideas  which  makes  it  easy 
to  identify  in  his  teaching  the  esse  of  God  and  the  esse  of 
creatures.  Frequently  he  states  the  orthodox  doctrine 
correctly  but  adds  ideas  which  are  difficult  to  reconcile 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Church;  then  again  he  writes 
in  perfect  conformity  with  her  doctrine ;  as : ' '  Being  alone 
gives  rest  and  causes  all  things  that  are  without  to  rest 
in  it  and  in  it  alone.  Therefore,  God  who  alone  is  beings 
reposes  in  Himself  and  causes  all  things  to  repose  iiJ 
Him."42  Eckehart  then  proceeds  to  treat  of  the  esse 
in  art  and  in  nature  and  remarks:  "But  all  and  every 
being  whether  in  art  or  in  nature,  inasmuch  as  it  is 
being,  that  is  by  reason  of  its  being,  is  from  God  and  God 
alone.  Therefore,  in  giving  being  to  creatures  God  causes 
them  to  rest."43  Here  he  makes  the  same  statements 
regarding  the  esse  of  creatures  that  he  makes  concerning 
the  esse  of  God.  l  i  God  recognizes  and  knows  nothing  but 
being.  He  is  limited  by  being.  God  loves  nothing  save 
His  being.  All  creatures  are  being."44  Could  anything 
be  stated  more  clearly  and  be  more  orthodox  than  the 
following  passage?  "God  created  the  whole  world;  how- 
ever, creatures  did  not  emanate  from  the  Divine  being  ac- 
cording to  their  natural  birth  as  did  the  eternal  Word  of 
the  Father,  for  then  the  creature  would  be  God,  which  no 


Meister  Eckhart,  p.  171.  Linsenmann,  Der  ethische  Charakter  der 
Lehre  Meister  Eckeharts,  p.  9.  Ullmann,  Reformers  before  the  Re- 
formation, p.  29.  W.  R.  Inge,  Christian  Mysticism,  pp.  118,  153.  Dela- 
croix, Le  Mysticisme  speculatif  en  Allemagne,  p.  276ff.  Pahncke,  Ein 
Grundgedanke  der  deutschen  Predigt  Meister  Eckeharts  in  Zeitschrift 
fur  Kirchengeschichte,  March,  1913. 

"Erfurt,  col.  144. 

"Erfurt,  cols.  32,  150. 

"Ibid. 

44Pfeiffer,  262,  40. 


62  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

right  mind  can  conceive  and  which  the  very  nature  of 
creatures  condemns  as  something  impossible/'45 

i  i  God  loves  everything  because  of  its  being, ' M6  but  this 
being  is  God;  here  is  the  whole  of  Eckehart 's  argument. 
But  unfortunately  the  esse  which  he  at  first  designates  as 
that  of  God,  appears  suddenly  as  that  of  creatures.  This 
continual  mingling  of  divine  and  of  created  being  is  found 
in  many  parts  of  his  works.47  According  to  Thomistic 
teaching  creatures  have  their  own  existence  yet  are  ever 
dependent  on  God  for  their  preservation.  With  Ecke- 
hart,  on  the  contrary,  creatures  exist  through  their  being 
which  exists  in  the  being  of  God,  and  this  latter  more 
than  the  created  essence  forms  a  substratum  for  the  esse 
of  creatures.  "By  whom,  through  whom,  and  in  whom 
are  all  things.  Are  because  it  signifies  being.  "48  Since 
the  being  of  creatures  does  not  really  exist  in  the  creature 
but  in  the  being  of  God,  therefore  created  being  must 
necessarily  be  apparent  being.  What,  then,  is  created 
if  not  universal  being!  Hence  Eckehart  could  well  call 
created  things  nihil — nothing.  Here  may  be  found  the 
source  of  two  condemned  articles.  The  first  of  these,  the 
, seventh,  is  "He  who  prays  for  perishable  things,  prays 
/  for  nothing ;  he  prays  badly  and  for  an  evil ;  from  which 
*  evil  we  beg  to  be  delivered  when  we  say  at  the  close  of 
the  Pater  noster, '  and  deliver  us  from  evil. '  ' M9  The  other 
article  is  the  twentieth:  "All  creatures  are  a  pure  noth- 
ing. I  do  not  say  that  they  are  small  or  something,  they 
are  simply  nothing. '  '50 

With  the  scholastics  Eckehart  teaches  that  a  knowledge 

of  the  Divine  Persons  is  necessary  for  a  right  idea  of 

creatures.    Hence  after  having  stated :  i  '  Therefore  in  the 

beginning  He  created  heaven  and  earth,  that  is  in  the  intel- 


45Pfeiffer,  325,  23. 
"Erfurt,  col.  165. 

"Erfurt,  cols.  4,  42,  70,  72,  137,  139. 
48Erfurt,  col.  167. 

48Erfurt,  col.  95;   the  same  article  is  found  verbatim  in  the  Cues 
manuscript,  Archiv  II,  p.  682;  pp.  491-516. 
"Pfeiffer,  136,  23. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  O3 

lect,"  Eckehart  concludes  in  regular  Thomistic  style, 
"and  this  is  against  those  who  say  that  God  created  and 
produced  creatures  naturally  and  through  necessity/'51 
Therefore,  it  is  God's  infinite  goodness  and  love  that 
produced  all  creatures  and  preserves  them  in  being.  "It 
is  on  account  of  His  goodness  that  God  pours  Himself 
out  and  communicates  Himself  to  all  creatures."52  "His 
divine  goodness  forced  Him  to  create  all  things  with 
which  He  was  eternally  pregnant  in  the  image  of  His  in- 
tellect, that  they  might  enjoy  His  goodness  together  with 
Him."53 

When  did  God  create  the  world?  Eckehart  gives  as 
stated  above  (p.  58)  four  different  expositions  of  "In  the 
beginning  God  created  heaven  and  earth."  The  third 
of  these  that  "God  certainly  created  in  the  past  and 
is,  nevertheless,  always  in  the  beginning  of  creation  and 
begins  to  create,"  relates  chiefly  to  the  time  of  creation. 
He  says:  "The  beginning  in  which  God  created  heaven 
and  earth  is  the  simple  now  of  eternity,  that  now  in  which 
God  is  from  eternity  and  in  which  is  ...  the  eternal 
emanation  of  the  Divine  Persons.  Therefore  Moses  said, 
that  in  the  very  beginning  God  created  heaven  and  earth, 
that  is,  the  absolute  beginning  in  which  God  is  and  in 
which  there  is  no  interval  whatever.  And  since  it  is  some- 
times asked,  why  God  did  not  create  the  world  before,  it 
is  answered  because  He  could  not ;  for  in  Him  there  was 
no  first — prius — before  the  world  was.  Besides,  how 
could  He  create  the  world  before,  when  He  creates  it  in 
the  same  now  in  which  He  is  God?  For  it  must  not  be1 
imagined  falsely  that  God  awaited  some  future  now  in 
which  to  create  the  world.  At  one  and  the  same  time  in 
which  He  was  God,  in  which  He  begot  His  co-eternal  Son, 
in  all  things  equal  to  God,  He  also  created  the  world."5* 
Here  are  found  embodied  the' first  and  the  third  condemned 


81Erfurt,  col.  12;  St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.,  XXXII,  a.  1,  ad.  3. 

B=Pfeiffer,  124,  33;  269,  21;  30,  36. 

"Erfurt,  col.  12. 

"Erfurt,  col.  12;  Pfeiffer,  579,  7;  266,  27. 


64  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

propositions.  Both  of  these  as  well  as  the  second,  which 
is  contained  verbatim  in  the  Exposition  on  St.  John,  treat 
of  the  eternity  of  the  world.  1 1  God  was  not  able  to  create 
he  world  before ;  because  before  the  world  and  time  there 
was  no  before  .  .  .  the  world  always  was,  for  there 
was  never  a  time  in  which  there  was  no  world.  It  can 
be  admitted  that  the  world  was  from  eternity;  and  again, 
that  God  was  not  able  to  create  it  before,  for  He  created 
the  world  in  the  first  now  of  eternity,  in  which  He  is  and 
is  God."55 

Denifle  maintains56  that  Eckehart  tries  to  demonstrate 
to  what  extent  God  created  the  world  in  the  beginning, 
by  giving  various  interpretations  of  "in  the  beginning 
God  created  heaven  and  earth."  "In  the  beginning" 
signifies  "in  the  Word"  or  "in  the  cause  of  the  idea."57 
"that  is,  He  created  all  things  according  to  the  ideal 
cause."58  God  did  not  create  the  ideal  world;  on  the 
contrary,  He  created  the  world  of  reality,  that  is  the 
exterior  world,  according  to  the  ideal  cause.  A  second 
interpretation  is  "in  the  intellect,"59  or  by  the  intellect, 
because  God  created  the  world  rationally  and  voluntarily 
and  not  through  necessity.  Finally  the  third  interpreta- 
tion is  the  "now  of  eternity"60  in  which  God  created  the 
world  exterior  to  Himself.  Hence  Eckehart  is  speaking 
here  of  the  creation  of  the  world  only  in  so  far  as  there 
is  question  of  this  in  Genesis.  According  to  him  the  Son 
is  the  ideal  cause  of  the  world,  therefore  the  creation  of 
the  world  necessarily  presupposes  the  generation  of 
the  Son. 

In  this  one  act  of  God,  considered  as  an  act  of  God  only, 
the  two  moments,  that  of  uttering  the  word  and  that  of 
creating  the  world,  can  be  differentiated  in  God  alone; 


85Archiv  II,  p.  680. 
68Ibid.,  p.  475. 
"Erfurt,  col.  11. 
68Erfurt,  col.  12. 
89Ibid. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  65 

in  fact,  He  performs  both  the  one  and  the  other  in  the 
"eternal  now."  "God  spoke  but  once.  He  uttered  the 
Son  in  generation,  because  the  Son  is  the  Word,  but  He 
also  uttered  creation  in  creating.  He  spoke  and  they 
were  made.  He  commanded  and  they  were  created  (Ps. 
148,  4).  Hence  this  is  what  the  Psalm  signifies:  God 
spoke  but  once,  I  heard  these  two — two,  I  say,  heaven  and 
earth.  Or  rather  these  two,  the  emanation  of  the  Persons 
and  the  creation  of  the  world. "61  "The  eternal  emana-\ 
tion  is  the  source  of  all  things  as  regards  their  eternity, 
but  in  time  they  are  created  out  of  nothing.  This  is  the 
reason  why  they  are  creatures ;  but  in  the  eternal  emana- 
tion in  which  they  emanated,  they  are  not  themselves^ 
they  are  God  in  God."62  The  eternity  of  God  knows 
neither  first  nor  last,  it  is  an  everlasting  present  in  which 
the  life  and  works  of  God  take  place,  for  God  Himself  is 
this  now.  Hence  it  follows  that  God,  if  the  act  only  and 
not  the  effect  be  considered,  could  not  have  created  t 
world  sooner  than  He  really  did,  for  the  simple  now  of  j 
eternity  knows  no  past  and  no  future,  no  before  and 
no  after,  which  exist  only  with  the  world;  God's  act  is/; 
the  eternal  now. 

It  is,  however,  not  sure,  as  some  affirm,  that  Eckehart 
intends  the  conclusion  of  the  eternity  of  the  world  to  be 
drawn  from  his  words.  Denifle  asks63  why  we  should 
give  to  Eckehart 's  third  interpretation  of  "in  the  be- 
ginning" a  signification  different  from  that  given  to  the 
other  two?  In  these  two  Eckehart  shows  how  "to  create 
in  the  beginning"  is  to  be  understood  on  the  part  of  God, 
and  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  he  should  have  a 
different  point  of  view  in  the  third.  Why  consider  in  this 
place  the  effect,  when  in  the  other  two  the  act  alone  is 


6;Ibid.  Pfeiffer,  207,  30.  Here  the  necessary  qualifying  phrase  Is 
added:  "But  the  prophet  says:  'I  heard  two,'  that  is,  I  understand 
God  and  the  creature.  When  God  uttered  it,  it  was  God,  but  here  it 
is  a  creature." 

62Pfeiffer,  Zeitschrift  fiir  deutsches  Altertum  VIII,  p.  248. 

^Denifle,  op.  cit.,  II,  p.  479. 


66  MEISTEK  ECKEHART 

considered?  In  the  present  instance  Eckehart  formulates 
his  doctrine  in  such  a  manner  that  he  seems  to  teach  the 
eternity  of  the  world.  As  soon  as  it  is  stated  that  "God 
created  the  world  from  all  eternity/'  or  "As  soon  as  God 
was,  He  created  the  world, "  one  is  forced  to  conclude 
that  the  world  is  eternal.  This  is  the  effect  of  our  mode 
of  thinking,  for  we  cannot  conceive  of  an  act  apart  from 
its  effect,  and  we  naturally  form  the  same  ideas  of  divine 
acts,  particularly  when  the  creative  act  is  brought  into 
connection  with  another  eternal  act  of  God,  as  is  done  in 
the  present  case. 

To  summarize  Eckehart 's  teaching  on  the  creation  we 
note:  (1)  He  admits  in  every  creature  a  virtual  and  a 
formal  being.  The  virtual  being  it  has  in  God,  its  essen- 
tial and  First  Cause;  the  formal  being  is  that  which  it 
possesses  in  nature  according  to  its  peculiar  form.  (2) 
He  identifies  the  Word  with  the  divine  ideas.  (3)  The 
ideas  are  the  eternal  uncreated  thought  of  God ;  hence  the 
eternity  of  the  world  of  ideas.  (4)  God  created  all  things, 
that  is,  he  brought  them  from  non-being  into  being. 
(5)  God  as  the  First  Cause  created  all  things  in  Himself, 
because  out  of  Him  there  is  nothing;  hence  the  ex  nihilo 
of  creation  signifies  the  order  and  not  the  material  cause 
of  creation.  (6)  All  creatures  depend  on  God,  their  First 
Cause,  for  their  preservation;  hence  the  attributes  of 
paternity  and  maternity  ascribed  to  God.  (7)  Eckehart 
does  not  discriminate  sufficiently  between  the  esse  of  God 
and  that  of  creatures,  but  often  mingles  them  and  thus 
seems  to  imply  that  they  are  identical.  The  created  esse, 
according  to  him,  subsists  in  the  divine  esse  which  acts 
as  a  substratum  for  the  created  or  universal  esse.  (8)  As 
a  result  of  this,  created  being  can  be  only  apparent  being; 
hence  all  creatures  are  a  pure  nothing.  (9)  With  the 
scholastics  he  teaches  that  God  did  not  create  the  world 
through  necessity,  but  voluntarily,  because  of  His  infinite 
goodness.  (10)  Finally,  Eckehart  apparently  asserts  the 
eternity  of  the  world,  as  some  of  his  propositions  go 
to  prove. 


CHAPTER  VI 

SIN  AND  THE  EEDEMPTION 

Eckehart  attributes  to  evil  the  character  of  privation, 
as  it  is  a  falling  away  from  being,  and  therefore  concludes 
that  evil  can  have  no  cause ;  consequently,  it  is  impossible 
that  God  who  is  being  itself,  should  be  the  cause  of  that 
which  possesses  no  being.1  In  stating  that  evil  has  no 
cause,  Eckehart  refers  to  its  formal  as  well  as  to  its 
final  cause.  As  a  privation  of  form  evil  has  no  formal 
cause,  nor  has  it  a  final  cause  since  it  is  a  negation  of 
order;  nevertheless,  evil  may  have  an  accidental  cause. 
Thus  evil,  which  consists  in  a  defect  of  action,  is  always 
caused  by  some  defect  of  an  agent.  In  God  there  is  no 
{defect,  there  is  nothing  but  infinite  perfection,  therefore, 
He  cannot  be  considered  the  cause  of  evil.  It  is  in  this 
sense  that  Eckehart  teaches:  "As  the  saints  and  the" 
philosophers  state,  evil  is  nothing  but  a  privation  and  a 
falling  away  from  being;  a  defect,  a  want  of  being. 
Hence  the  greatness  of  an  evil  depends  on  the  amount  of 
good  that  is  wanting;  and  the  evil,  whether  it  is  punish- 
ment, or  guilt,  or  some  other  thing,  is  greater  when  it  is 
deficient  in  a  good  that  is  superior  as  to  quality,  or  quan- 
tity, or  being.  For  generally  that  is  worse  in  which  a 
more  noble  being  or  a  greater  variety  of  being  is  wanting. 
In  the  second  place  it  is  evident,  that  evil  has  no  cause* 
for  a  cause  presupposes  an  effect  as  every  effect  has  a 
cause.  But  evil  is  not  an  effect  but  a  defect,  a  negation, 
which  the  word  'defect'  itself  indicates.  Therefore,  to 
seek  the  cause  of  evil  is  to  seek  the  cause  of  that  which 
has  no  cause,  since  it  is  no  effect;  in  fact,  not  to  be  an 
effect  and  not  to  have  a  cause,  this  is  what  constitutes 
the  evil.  Whoever,  therefore,  seeks  the  cause  of  evil, 
seeks  the  cause  of  non-being.  .  .  .  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  especially  impossible  that  God  should  be  the  cause  of 


>Cf.  St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  XLVIII,  a.  1,  3. 

67 


68  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

evil  and  death  or  any  other  privation,  since  He  alone 
is  the  proper  and  immediate  cause  of  being  itself ;  whereas 
Xevil  has  no  being,  it  is  falling  away  from  being.  More- 
over, since  being  is  an  effect  peculiar  to  God  who  is  its 
cause,  He  flows  into  it  and  communicates  being  to  it; 
hence  being  that  is  evil  is  impossible.  But  to  say  that 
some  good  or  being  is  perverted,  is  the  same  as  to  assert 
that  being  is  not  being,  or  evil  is  not  evil."2  "It  is  evi- 
dent then  that  since  evil  is  a  non-being,  it  cannot  be  from 
God  nor  can  God  be  in  it,  for  it  has  no  being.  Hence 
those  only  are  evil  in  whom  God  does  not  dwell,  for  they 
neither  are  nor  are  they  created."3 

Commenting  on  the  next,  ' '  They  that  work  by  me  shall 
not  sin,"4  Eckehart  adds:  "Note  in  the  first  place  a  ser- 
vice 'they  that  work  by  me,'  and  then  the  reward  ' shall 
not  sin.'  But  why  is  the  reward  stated  negatively  ' shall 
not  sin,'  for  a  negative  reward  is  nothing?  Service  gen- 
erally implies  activity,  and  reward  passivity,  that  is, 
receiving  something,  but  punishment  consists  in  privation 
and  pain.  Service  lies  in  action  and  therefore  proceeds 
from  the  will,  which  renders  us  masters  of  our  actions ; 
the  reward  is  in  the  emotions  and  in  the  intellect,  for  to 
understand  anything  is  to  suffer  or  receive  it  from  with- 
out ;  lastly,  the  punishment  is  in  privation  and  therefore 
in  affliction.  Every  privation  is  a  falling  away  from 
being,  consequently  from  some  good,  or  pleasure,  or 
delight."5 

In  the  German  works  Eckehart  seldom  mentions  evil 
as  such,  except  very  indirectly  and  then  only  in  connec- 
tion with  some  other  subject;  but  evil  that  is  moral,  or 
sin,  he  does  mention,  as  one  would  expect  in  works  that 
have  primarily  an  ethical  purpose.  With  all  Catholic 
theologians  Eckehart  considers  moral  evil,  or  sin,  as  the 
only  real  evil  in  the  world.  Hence  he  can  truly  say:  "I 

2Erfurt,  cols.  87,  88;   Pfeiffer,  327,  15;   613,  6. 
3Erfurt,  cols.  94,  96. 
4Ecclus.   XXIV,  30. 
"Erfurt,  col.  79. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART 

am  certain  that  nothing  can  injure  me  save  sin  alone, "' 
for  it  is  the  greatest  obstacle  to  God's  work  in  the  soul. 
"Therefore  sin  must  be  removed  before  the  soul  can  be 
justified  and  God  can  dwell  in  her.m  Although  fully  con- 
scious of  the  enormous  guilt  of  sin,  Eckehart  refrains 
from  enlarging  upon  its  hatred  and  malice,  and  turns 
instead  to  its  effects.  Sin,  according  to  its  nature,  is  a 
turning  away  from  the  ultimate  purpose  of  life,  from 
virtue  and  everlasting  happiness ;  hence  sin  is  disorder, 
infirmity  and  death.  Therefore  he  teaches :  ' l  Mortal  sin 
is  an  infirmity  of  our  nature.  Human  nature  is  an  image 
of  the  Blessed  Trinity,  a  likeness  and  mirror  of  the  Divin- 
ity and  of  eternity.  Mortal  sin  ruins  all  this.  It  is  the 
death  of  the  soul,  for  it  deprives  the  soul  of  God,  its  life. 
Mortal  sin  is  an  unrest  of  the  heart,  since  it  removes  the 
soul  from  its  proper  place  of  repose  which  is  in  God,  as 
St.  Augustine  says:  'Thou  hast  made  us  for  Thyself; 
therefore  we  cannot  rest  save  in  Thee.'  Mortal  sin  is 
a  weakening  of  the  faculties,  because  through  our  own 
power  we  can  neither  rise  from  sin  nor  keep  from  falling 
into  it.  Mortal  sin  deceives  the  senses  as  to  its  transitory 
delight  as  well  as  to  its  eternal  punishment.  Mortal  sin 
is  the  death  of  all  grace  .  .  .  and  virtue  .  .  .  and 
good  works;  for  how  can  a  dead  person  perform  living 
works?  Mortal  sin  is  the  ban  of  Christendom  .  .  . 
and  finally,  it  is  an  everlasting,  infernal  prison."8 

In  his  interpretation  of  ' '  They  that  work  by  me  shall 
not  sin,"9  Eckehart  shows  what  it  is  that  renders  one 
action  good  and  praiseworthy  and  another  sinful.  "The 
first  explanation  of  by  me  is  according  to  me.  In  every 
art  that  which  is  done  according  to  the  art  is  right  and 
good,  but  what  is  against  the  art  is  wrong  and 
worthy  of  punishment.  The  same  is  true  in  nature  and 
in  morality  where  all  acts  are  done  for  a  definite  end, 

"Sievers,  op.  cit.,  p.  421. 
7Ibid.,  p.  383. 
•Pfeiffer.  p.  217,  3-40. 
•Ecclus.  XXIV,  30. 


70  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

and  which  by  that  very  fact  are  considered  good.  On  the 
contrary,  whatever  is  opposed  to  nature,  to  art,  to  moral- 
ity or  is  inconsistent  with  their  laws  is  sinful;  and  this 
alone  constitutes  the  sin.  As  is  said  in  Jureperitus  :10 
4  He  who  sins  does  not  sin  with  the  authority  of  the  law/ 
The  meaning  is,  whoever  performs  an  act  because  the  law 
ordains  it,  does  not  sin ;  but  he  sins  who  acts  against  the 
law.  ...  All  that  is  done  according  to  God  is  good, 
but  what  is  done  away  from  Him  is  sinful,  and  in  this 
alone  does  sin  consist.  And  that  is  the  meaning  of  these 
words:  'They  that  work  by  me,'  that  is  according  to  me, 
'  shall  not  sin.m  In  another  place  Eckehart  asks  what 
sin  is  and  answers :  "Sin  is  the  turning  aside  from  happi- 
iness  and  from  virtue.  "12  Sin  is  so  great  an  evil  that 
"rather  than  knowingly  commit  sin,  either  mortal  or 
venial,  we  must  be  ready  to  endure  all  kinds  of  suffering 
that  could  befall  us.  Were  it  possible  to  redeem  a  count- 
less number  of  lost  souls  by  the  commission  of  one  venial 
sin,  we  may  not  redeem  them  on  that  condition. ' m 

Eckehart  has  a  rather  striking  doctrine  on  good  works 
performed  in  the  state  of  mortal  sin.  The  Church 
teaches  that  good  works  done  in  the  state  of  grace  merit 
an  eternal  reward  from  God,  but  this  is  lost  by  mortal  sin, 
and  is  of  no  avail  to  the  sinner  if  he  dies  unf  orgiven.  So 
long  as  he  remains  in  sin  he  is  incapable  of  meriting,  and 
his  works,  good  in  themselves,  are  worthless.  But  as 
soon  as  his  sin  is  remitted,  he  regains  not  only  sanctifying 
grace  but  also  all  the  merit  he  had  before  falling  into 
mortal  sin.  While  fully  agreeing  with  part  of  this  prop- 
osition, Eckehart  positively  denies  that  works  performed 
in  the  state  of  grievous  sin  are  not  deserving  of  merit. 
He  affirms  that  neither  good  works  done  in  the  state  of 


10Eckehart  understands  by  Jureperitus  the  Decree  of  Gratlan  es- 
pecially c.  40,  C.  XXIII,  qu.  4:  Qui  peccat,  non  peccat  legis  auctoritate, 
sed  contra  legis  auctoritatem. 

"Erfurt,  cols.  80,  82. 

12Pfeiffer,  172,  29. 

"Biittner,  op.  cit,  p.  29. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  71 

mortal  sin,  nor  the  time  in  which  they  are  accomplished 
is  lost,  always  provided,  however,  that  man  will  return, 
to  the  state  of  grace.  "The  works  a  person  performs 
in  the  state  of  mortal  sin  are  not  done  by  means 
of  mortal  sin,  for  these  works  are  good  and  mortal 
sin  is  bad.  They  proceed  instead  from  the  basis 
of  the  soul,  which  of  its  own  nature  is  good;  but  as 
the  soul  is  not  in  the  state  of  grace,  these  works  do  not 
merit  heaven  at  the  time  they  are  performed.  Moreover, 
they  do  not  injure  the  soul,  for  their  fruit  remains  in  the 
soul,  spiritualized  and  made  one  with  it.  Therefore, 
it  is  as  impossible  to  destroy  the  fruit  of  the  work  as 
it  is  to  destroy  the  spirit  itself.  Furthermore,  through 
the  execution  of  these  ideas  which  are  good,  the  spirit 
frees  itself  as  effectually  as  if  it  were  in  the  state  of 
grace  and  makes  the  same  preparation  for  union  with 
God.  In  proportion  as  the  spirit  is  void  of  images  by 
the  execution  of  its  ideas  (ledigende  ist  und  uz 
wiirkende)  it  will  approach  to  God,  and  hence  in  the  same 
proportion  neither  work  nor  time  is  lost.  .  .  .  If  it 
were  necessary  to  perform  the  same  good  works  after 
the  return  of  grace,  there  would  be  need  of  the  time  which 
was  employed  while  the  person  was  in  the  state  of  mortal 
sin,  but  now  this  time  is  at  his  disposal  for  other  good 
works  that  will  unite  him  more  closely  to  God.  Hence 
the  fruit  of  those  works  remains  in  the  spirit;  and 
although  the  work  and  the  time  are  not  eternal,  neverthe- 
less the  spirit  from  which  they  proceeded  lives,  and  the 
fruit  of  the  work,  but  without  the  work  and  the  time,  is 
full  of  grace/'14 

Among  the  condemned  articles  there  are  five  that  relate 
to  Eckehart's  teaching  on  sin.  In  the  interpretation  of 
the  text  "That  the  works  of  God  may  be  made  manifest 
in  him,"15  after  having  stated  that  the  end  of  all  God's 
works  is  to  manifest  the  glory  of  God,  Eckehart  con- 
tinues: "In  every  evil  work,  I  say  evil  inasmuch  as  it 

"Pfeiffer,  73,  26. 
"John,  IX,  3. 


72  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

is  wrong,  the  glory  of  God  is  manifested,  reflected,  and 
ually  evident,16  according  to  what  was  said  above, i  And 
the  light  shineth  in  the  darkness/17  ...  He  who 
blasphemes  anyone,  praises  God  with  the  very  sin  of 
Jblasphemy;  and  the  more  he  blasphemes,  the  more  he 
praises  God.18  Indeed  he  praises  God  by  blaspheming 
^God."19  This  last  quotation  contains  the  fourth,  fifth, 
and  sixth  condemned  articles.  The  fourteenth  is  found  in 
the  German  treatise  known  as  "The  Book  of  Divine  Con- 
solations. "  Eckehart  is  insisting  on  complete  submission 
of  the  human  will  to  the  divine  will,  and,  as  he  frequently 
does  in  his  ardent,  impulsive  manner,  permits  himself 
certain  exaggerated  expressions  without  any  thought  of 
their  far-reaching  import.  "And,  therefore,  if  God 
should  will  for  any  reason  whatever,  that  I  commit  sin,  I 
would  not  wish  that  I  had  not  committed  it;  for  thus 
God's  will  is  accomplished  on  earth,  that  is  in  sin,  as  it  is 
in  heaven,  that  is  in  good  deeds."20  The  fifteenth  con- 
demned article  embodies  the  same  idea.  "If  a  person 
had  committed  a  thousand  sins,  provided  he  is  rightly 
disposed,  he  should  not  wish  he  had  not  committed 
them."21 

Eckehart 's  passage  on  hell,  the  eternal  punishment  for 

sin,  forms  a  fitting  conclusion  to  his  doctrine  on  sin  and 

evil.    "There  is  question  as  to  what  burns  in  hell.    The 

\  doctors  agree  in  answering — self-will !  But  I  assert,  it  is 

Nothing  that  burns  in  hell.    Suppose  that  some  one  took 

18The  fourth  condemned  proposition.  Item  in  omni  opere,  etiam 
malo,  malo  inquam  tarn  pene,  quam  culpe,  manifestatur  et  relucet 
equaliter  gloria  dei. 

"John    I   5. 

"The  fifth  condemned  proposition.  Item  vituperans  quempiam 
vituperio  ipso  peccato  vituperii  laudat  deum,  et  quo  plus  vituperat  et 
gravius  peccat,  amplius  deum  laudat. 

19Archiv  II,  p.  682;  the  sixth  condemned  proposition.  Item  deum 
quis  blasphemando  deum  laudat. 

"Pfeiffer,  426,  19.  Bonus  homo  debet  sic  conformare  voluntatem 
suarn  voluntati  divine,  quod  ipse  velit  quicquid  deus  vult:  qua  deus  yult 
aliquo  modo  me  peccasse,  nollem  ego,  quod  ego  peccata  non  commisissem, 
et  hec  est  rera  penitentia. 

J1Si  homo  commisisset  mille  peccata  mortalia,  si  talis  homo  esset 
recte  dispositus,  non  deberet  yelle  se  ea  non  commisisse. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  73 

a  live  coal  and  laid  it  on  my  hand ;  if  I  then  said  that  the 
coal  burns  my  hand,  I  should  be  greatly  mistaken.    If  I  »     . 
were  to  say  what  really  burns  me,  I  should  have  to  reply  / 
that  nothing  does  it;  because  the  coal  possesses  some- 
thing which  my  hand  does  not,  and  it  is  this  nothing 
which  burns  me.    If  my  hand  had  all  that  the  coal  is  and 
does,  it  would  completely  possess  the  nature  of  fire.    Then 
all  the  fire  that  ever  burned,  if  it  were  poured  out  on 
my  hand,  could  not  hurt  me.    In  the  same  way,  I  assert, 
that  because  God  and  all  the  saints  that  behold  Him  in 
everlasting  bliss,  possess  something  which  those  souls] 
that  are  separated  from  God  do  not  possess,  it  is  this  very 
nothing  that  tortures  the  souls  in  hell  more  than  self- 
will  or  fire.    Thou  art  imperfect  in  the  same  proportion 
as  this  nothing  adheres  to  thee."22 

Adam  on  account  of  sin  fell  from  the  state  of  original 
justice  and  consequently  from  God  and  His  friendship 
and  brought  disorder  into  creation.  "When  Adam  turned 
away  from  God,  all  his  faculties  degenerated.  Then, 
too,  it  was  that  creatures  were  differentiated  because 
discord  entered  among  them,  one  wanting  this  and  an- 
other that.  Thus  all  powers  were  weakened  in  creatures 
even  to  the  lowest.  "23  Christ  alone  could  restore  Adam 
to  the  unity  from  which  he  had  fallen.  Hence  Eckehart 
interprets  the  words,  "I  go  to  Him  who  sent  me"  thus: 
"I  go  to  deliver  you  from  all  the  fetters  of  creatures  into 
which  the  sin  of  Adam  has  cast  you."24  But  Christ 
accomplished  this  more  fully  when  He  drew  all  things 
to  Himself.  One  of  Eckehart 's  most  beautiful  passages 
treats  of  the  manner  in  which  Christ,  Our  Lord,  atoned 
for  the  sin  of  Adam. 

"Before  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world, 
the  heavenly  Father  had  drawn  men  with  all  His  power 
for  the  space  of  five  thousand  and  two  hundred  years,  and 


:2Pfeiffer,  65,  20. 
-•Pfeiffer,  497,  2. 
24Pfeiffer,  244,  13. 


74  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

yet  He  had  not  drawn  anyone  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
When  the  Son  saw  how  hard  the  Father  had  labored  and 
had  accomplished  nothing,  then  He  spoke  to  the  Father 
saying:  'I  will  draw  them  with  the  cords  of  Adam7;  as 
though  He  said :  'I  see  well,  0  Father,  that  all  Thy  power 
can  effect  nothing,  therefore  my  wisdom  will  draw  them 
with  the  cords  of  Adam.  This  is  why  the  Son  descended 
from  heaven  into  the  womb  of  Our  Lady  and  there 
assumed  all  our  corporal  infirmities,  but  without  the 
sin  and  without  the  folly  into  which  Adam  had  cast 
us.  He  made  a  cord  of  all  His  words  and  acts,  and 
of  all  His  blood  and  members,  and  then  drew  with  all 
His  Heart  until  finally  a  bloody  sweat  poured  forth 
from  His  sacred  Body.  After  He  had  drawn  thirty- 
three  years  and  had  accomplished  nothing,  He  saw,  never- 
theless, that  all  creatures  began  to  be  moved  and  were 
now  ready  to  follow  Him.  Therefore,  He  said:  'When  I 
shall  be  lifted  up,  I  shall  draw  all  things  to  myself ; '  and 
therefore  was  He  extended  on  the  cross,  casting  aside  His 

.  comeliness  and  all  that  could  prevent  Him  from  drawing 
us.  ... 

^i  "The  first  thing  that  naturally  draws  others  is  equal- 
ity. .  .  .  Through  His  divinity  and  His  equality  He 
drew  the  heavenly  Father.  .  .  .  Then  to  draw  Him 
still  closer  and  to  cause  Him  to  forget  His  anger,  the  Son 
spoke :  'Dearest  Father,  since  Thou  wouldst  never  forgive 
sin,  not  even  in  consideration  of  all  the  sacrifices  offered 
Thee  in  the  Old  Law,  therefore  I  pray  Thee,  0  my  Father, 
I,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  Thy  Heart,  equal  to  Thee  in 
all  things  according  to  the  divinity  and  in  whom  Thou 
hast  hidden  every  treasure  of  divine  love,  I  have  come  to 
this  cross  as  a  living  holocaust,  that  Thou  cast  on  me,  Thy 
beloved  Son,  the  eyes  of  Thy  paternal  mercy,  and  behold- 
ing the  blood  which  flows  from  my  wounds,  do  Thou  extin- 
guish the  fiery  sword  in  the  hands  of  the  cherub  who 
guards  the  entrance  to  paradise,  so  that  from  henceforth 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  75 

all  may  freely  enter  therein  who,  through  me,  repent  of 
their  sins,  confess  them,  and  do  penance     .     .     . 

'  *  The  second  way  in  which  He  drew  all  things  to  Him 
self  was  by  emptying  Himself.  All  His  precious  Bloo 
streamed  forth,  thus  drawing  to  Himself  the  superabun- 
dance of  grace  and  mercy  hidden  in  the  Father's  Heart, 
a  superabundance  that  more  than  sufficed  for  the  whole 
world.  .  .  .  Thirdly,  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was 
inflamed  and  consumed  on  the  cross;  for  His  Sacred 
Heart  burned  like  a  fiery  furnace  from  which  flames 
issued  forth  on  all  sides.  That  the  whole  world  might  be 
redeemed  He  was  consumed  on  the  cross  in  the  fire  of 
His  love.  It  was  by  the  fire  of  this  love  that  He  drew  the 
world  to  Him;  His  love  for  mankind  was  so  great  that 
no  one  could  conceal  himself  from  those  flames.  .  .  . 
For  nothing  that  Our  Blessed  Lord  ever  did  was  accom- 
plished with  so  great  a  love  as  the  martyrdom  He  endured 
on  the  cross.  There  lie  delivered  Himself  for  us,  to  wash 
away  our  sins  in  His  precious  Blood  and  to  offer  Himself 
up  as  a  sacrifice  to  the  living  God.  Therefore,  it  was 
principally  by  the  love  which  He  manifested  for  us  on 
the  cross  that  He  drew  us  to  Himself,  that  all  who  com- 
passionate His  bitter  sufferings  and  death  may  be  happy 
with  Him  in  the  eternal  bliss  of  heaven."25 

Our  Lord  and  Savior  came  on  earth  to  serve  as  our 
model  in  all  things;  He  is  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the 
life.  "Christ  alone  is  our  way  and  the  aim  that  we 
must  follow."26  "His  humanity  is  the  way  for  our  hu- 
manity. To  understand  this  fully,  let  us  study  this  com- 
plete exemplar  of  perfection  as  well  as  each  of  His 
features  separately.  If  we  deviate  from  even  a  single 
trait  of  our  model,  we  shall  deform  ourselves.  We  ought 
so  to  live,  says  St.  Paul,  that  God  can  behold  in  us  the 
reflection  of  all  His  acts;  that  is,  we  ought  to  strive  to 
imitate  the  life  He  taught  us  by  His  own  example."27 

25Pfeiffer,  218,  26-220,  15. 

"Pfeiffer,  295,  7. 

27Pfeiffer,  Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches  Altertum,  VIII,  no.  8. 


CHAPTER  VII 

VIRTUE  AND  GOOD  WORKS 

The  virtue  on  which  Meister  Eckehart  lays  most  stress 
and  which  he  considers  fundamental,  is  humility. 
Humility  is  the  real  test  of  sanctity ;  for  without  humil- 
ity there  can  be  no  holiness,  no  true  virtue.  "Now  some 
imagine  themselves  very  holy  and  very  perfect  because 
they  refrain  from  great  deeds,  and  all  the  while  they 
desire  and  want  many  things  and  demand  great  consid- 
eration for  themselves.  These  people  imagine  they  really 
long  for  devotion  and  yet  they  cannot  bear  the  least 
word!"1  "If  we  want  to  know  in  whom  God  dwells,  we 
easily  discover  it  by  two  things,  namely,  true  humility 
charity."2 

But  how  can  true  humility  be  known?  "This  is  true 
humility — that  man  who  has  been  created  out  of  nothing, 
should  because  of  this  very  nothingness  not  presume 
either  to  do  or  to  omit  anything  of  himself,  but  in  all 
things  implore  the  light  of  grace.  In  this  knowledge  of 
what  we  are  to  do  and  what  to  leave  undone,  consists 
true  humility  of  nature.  Humility  of  spirit  leads  us 
to  attribute  to  ourselves  as  little  of  all  the  benefits  God 
has  conferred  on  us,  as  we  did  before  we  had  any  being. ' >3 
Humility  renders  man  truly  great;4  for  God  is,  as  it 
were,  constrained  to  pour  out  His  graces  on  the  humble. 
"God  can  do  all  things,  but  He  cannot  refuse  anything 
to  the  man  who  is  humble  and  of  great  desires.  If,  there- 
fore, I  do  not  constrain  God  to  do  all  that  I  wish,  it  is 
because  I  am  wanting  either  in  humility  or  in  desires."3 
Some  other  advantages  that  spring  from  humility  are 
that  God  strengthens  the  humble  man  in  all  virtues,  but 


'Pfeiffer,  148,  27. 
2Sievers,  op.  cit,  p.  395. 
Tfeiffer,  295,  21. 
4Pfeiffer,  276,  18. 
BPfeiffer,  168,  27. 


76 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  77 

especially  in  His  holy  love;6  that  the  humble  soul  is 
borne  up  by  divine  grace  until  it  reposes  in  the  pure  being 
of  God;7  hence  humility  paves  the  way  for  one  of  God's 
greatest  gifts — the  intimate  union  of  the  soul  with  God. 

Eckehart  is  no  less  insistent  on  charity,  the  life-giving 
principle  of  all  virtues,  than  he  is  on  humility.  "Buti 
humility  must  be  joined  to  charity,  for  without  charity!  x 
humility  would  be  dead ;  it  is  charity  that  causes  all  virf 
tues  to  be  virtues."8  If  humility  is  the  foundation,  char- 
ity is  the  crown  and  mistress  of  all  virtues.  "Charity 
is  ...  the  mother  of  all  virtue,  and  all  perfection, 
and  all  beatitude."9  At  the  beginning  of  conversion 
fear  is  necessary,  fear  as  regards  sin;  but  " because  fear 
contracts  the  heart,  charity  expels  it;  the  more  charity 
increases,  the  more  fear  diminishes."10  "To  serve  God 
through  fear  is  well,  but  to  serve  Him  through  love  is 
better."11  "True  charity  does  not  seek  itself,  but  it 
loves  God  for  His  goodness  and  for  all  that  He  is  in  Him- 
self."12 "Love  God  as  readily  in  poverty  as  in  riches, 
in  sickness  as  in  health;  let  Him  be  as  dear  to  thee  in 
trials  and  suffering,  as  though  thou  wert  without  any 
suffering. ' m 

It  is  a  well-known  axiom  of  the  spiritual  life  that  the 
body  is  more  speedily  and  more  certainly  brought  into 
subjection  to  the  spirit  through  love  than  through  works 
of  penance.  Eckehart  illustrates  this  truth  as  follows: 
"Love  is  like  the  angler's  hook:  as  soon  as  the  fish  has 
bitten,  it  succumbs  to  the  angler;  no  matter  how  the 
fish  may  turn  and  writhe,  the  angler  has  it  safe."14 
"Where  love  knows  no  limits,  there  God  can  act  accord- 
ing to  the  measure  of  His  love.  And  were  a  man  to  live  a 

•Pfeiffer,  226,  3. 
7Pfeiffer,  155,  21. 
8Pfeiffer,  606,  31. 
•Pfeiffer,  259,  26. 
10Pfeiffer,  245,  27. 
"Pfeiffer,  221,  34. 
12Pfeiffer,  259,  23. 
"Pfeiffer,  209,  10. 
"Pfeiffer,  29,  32. 


78  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

thousand  years,  he  could  constantly  increase  in  char- 
ity."15 "So  long  as  thou  canst  do  anything  against  God 
or  His  holy  law,  thou  hast  no  love  of  God,  even  though 
the  whole  world  should  believe  thou  hast  it.  It  is  joy 
to  the  man  who  lovingly  abides  in  God's  will,  to  do  all 
that  is  pleasing  to  Him  and  to  avoid  all  that  is  displeas- 
ing. "16  This  divine  love  not  only  subjects  the  body  to 
the  spirit,  but  as  it  increases  in  the  soul  it  generates 
within  it  such  a  longing  for  the  possession  of  God  that 
the  soul  can  no  longer  find  any  pleasure  in  creatures 
unless  they  refer  to  the  Beloved,  and  the  lover  himself  is 
gradually  transformed,  as  far  as  this  is  possible,  into 
the  Beloved.  Hence  "the  soul  that  burns  with  an  ardent 
desire  for  the  love  of  God  and  that  diligently  seeks  Him 
experiences  in  all  things  out  of  God  nothing  but  bitter- 
ness and  disappointment.  Since,  therefore,  the  soul  can 
find  no  rest  in  creatures,  it  becomes  wearisome  to  itself 
just  as  soon  as  it  finds  itself  resting  in  a  creature  away 
from  God.  Its  ardent  longing  for  God  compels  it  to  fol- 
low after  Him,  as  fire  follows  its  own  nature  until  it  has 
consumed  and  transformed  into  itself  the  object  upon 
which  it  has  seized.  Hence  St.  Augustine  says:  "Lord, 
if  Thou  remove  from  us,  give  us  another  in  Thy  place  for 
our  souls  cannot  live  without  Thee.  Whither  Thou  goest, 
thither  will  they  follow  after  Thee,  for  without  Thee  they 
cannot  exist.  This  is  perfect  love  which  causes  the  soul 
to  love  unto  the  end. ' m 

Eckehart  considers  the  love  of  God  perfect  if  it 
reigns  alone  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other  love,  yet 
not  because  it  is  superior  in  itself  to  every  other  form 
of  love.  In  this  sense  he  interprets  the  text,  "Simon, 
lovest  thou  me  more  than  these?"18  as  follows:  "When 
it  is  said,  lovest  thou  me  more  than  these,  it  means,  lovest 
thou  me  more  and  better  than  those  belonging  to  thee? 

15Biittner,  op.  cit,  p.  28. 
"Pfeiffer,  232,  29. 
"Pfeiffer,  335,  22. 
"John  XXI,  15, 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  79 

But  this  is  not  yet  perfect  love ;  for  first  and  second,  more 
and  less,  indicate  order  and  degree,  but  in  unity  (in  uno) 
there  is  no  such  degree  or  order.  Therefore,  although 
he  may  love  God  more  and  better  than  those  nearest  and 
dearest  to  him,  yet  he  does  not  love  Him  perfectly,  for 
he  neither  loves  God  in  them  nor  them  in  God."19  This 
is  the  twenty-fifth  article  mentioned  in  the  bull  of  con- 
demnation, one  of  those  propositions  censured  as  daring 
and  suspected  of  heresy.20 

The  love  of  God  must  go  hand  in  hand  with  love  of 
the  neighbor,  as  St.  John  says:  "If  a  man  say,  I  love 
God  and  hateth  his  neighbor,  he  is  a  liar  .  .  .  this 
commandment  we  have  from  God,  that  he  who  loveth 
God,  love  also  his  brother."21  The  same  thought  is  found 
scattered  up  and  down  the  pages  of  Eckehart's  sermons 
and  treatises.  ' 'Love  God  above  all  things  and  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself,  for  this  is  a  divine  precept.  But  I  say 
it  is  not  only  a  precept,  but  a  command  that  God  Himself 
gave."  "If  thou  love  one  person  more  than  anotherr( 
except  it  be  for  his  virtue,  then  thou  seekest  thyself  and 
God  is  not  thy  God. ' m  It  is  for  this  very  reason  charity 
demands  that  we  forgive  him  who  has  offended  us. 
"Why  so?  That  we  fulfill  God's  will.  We  ought  not 
to  delay  this  duty  until  our  brother  begs  us  to  forgive 
him,  we  ought  rather  say:  Friend,  forgive  me  that  I 
have  offended  thee.  And  so  eager  should  we  be  to  advance 
in  virtue,  that  the  greater  the  pain,  the  more  earnest  we 
should  be."24  "Does  this  seem  too  difficult?"  he  asks  in 
another  place  and  then  replies:  "Not  to  him  who  truly 
loves  God.  .  .  .  Such  a  man  is  always  happy,  always 

"Cues  manuscript,  Archiv  II,  p.  683. 

20Cum  dicitur:  Simon  diligis  me  plus  hiis?  sensus  est,  id  est, 
plusquam  istos,  et  bene  quidena,  sed  non  perfecte.  In  primo  enim  et 
secundo  et  plus  et  minus  et  gradus  est  et  ordo,  in  uno  autem  nee 
gradus  est  nee  ordo.  Qui  igitur  diligit  deum  plus  quam  proximum, 
bene  quidem,  sed  nondum  perfecte. 

211  John  IV,  20,  21. 

22Pfeiffer,  208,  22. 

23Pfeiffer,  278,  20. 

24Pfeiffer,  62,  13. 


80  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

respected,  and  always  reaping  benefits ;  he  is  really  here 
below  dwelling  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven."25 

Next  to  humility  and  charity  Eckehart  lays  most  stress 
on  conformity  to  God's  holy  will  and  detachment;  how- 
ever, he  states  in  general  that  one  virtue  should  not  be 
esteemed  higher  than  another,26  for  "the  faithful  and 
loving  soul,  like  the  bee  that  extracts  sweet  nectar  from 
all  sorts  of  flowers  to  convert  into  honey,  gathers  from 
each  flower  of  virtue  something  wherewith  to  improve 
and  benefit  itself.  "2T 

Conformably  to  the  doctrine  of  St.  James  that  "Faith 
without  good  works  is  dead,"28  Eckehart  frequently  em- 
phasizes the  value  and  necessity  of  good  works,  both 
interior  and  exterior.  He  teaches  that  these  latter  have 
been  ordained  and  regulated  "to  turn  the  outer  man  to 
God,  to  direct  him  to  a  spiritual  life  and  to  good  works ;  to 
restrain  man  and  thus  prevent  him  from  neglecting  him- 
self or  being  led  astray;  to  keep  the  soul  ever  in  readi- 
ness for  God's  action.  .  .  .  The  aim  of  all  such 
virtuous  acts  as  praying,  spiritual  reading,  singing 
hymns,  watching,  fasting,  and  works  of  penance  is  to 
attract  man,  to  turn  him  away  and  keep  him  from  evil 
and  strange  deeds.  Therefore,  when  we  no  longer  per- 
ceive the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  acting  within  us, 
when  we  are,  as  it  were,  abandoned  by  God,  then  it  is 
very  necessary  that  we  exercise  ourselves  in  devout 
works,  especially  in  such  as  we  know  by  experience  to  be 
most  effectual  and  helpful."29 

The  end  or  intention  of  an  act  is  of  such  importance 
that  it  renders  acts,  indifferent  in  themselves,  either  good 
or  bad;  consequently  all  good  works  are  meritorious  and 
pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God  in  proportion  to  the  purity 
of  the  intention  that  prompts  them.  "The  merit  of  our 


25Pfeiffer,  136,  7. 
28Pfeiffer,  190,  22. 
27Pfeiffer,  414,  11. 
28Jas.  11,  26. 

29Pfeiffer,  22,  27. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  81 

acts  does  not  depend  on  their  number,  greatness  or 
length,  but  on  the  intention  alone;  that  is,  on  the  love 
or  charity  of  the  person  who  accomplishes  the  work." 
' '  When  a  man  performs  a  good  deed  with  the  intention 
directed  to  something  else  than  God,  he  renders  the  honor 
of  the  good  work  to  that  something  and  not  to  God,  whom 
he  despoils  of  the  honor.  Hence  such  works  are  useless 
and  without  merit. ' m 

Although  good  works  are  necessary,  they  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  substituted  for  amendment  of  life — such  a  pro- 
cedure would  be  mere  folly.    i  i  I  have  often  said  that  those 
who  observe  long  fasts  and  frequent  vigils  and  perform 
great  works,  but  who  do  not  correct  their  faults  and 
reform  their  lives,  in  which  alone  true  progress  consists, 
deceive  themselves  and  are  the  sport  of  the  evil  spirit. '  * 
"Let  no  one  measure  his  advancement  in  sanctity  by 
prolonged  fasts  and  numerous  exterior  works.    The  true  - 
sign  of  progress  is  the  increase  of  love  for  heavenly, 
things  and  a  growing  distaste  for  the  things  of  time.    If' 
a  person,  who  possesses  a  hundred  marks,33  should  for 
the  love  of  God  give  them  to  found  a  monastery,  he  would 
certainly  do  a  very  good  work.    Nevertheless,  I  say,  it 
would  be  far  better  if  a  person  contemned  and  annihi- 
lated himself  as  much  for  the  love  of  God. '  '34 

The  Brethren  of  the  Free  Spirit  claimed,  as  did  also 
,the  Beghards,  that  when  the  "perfect  stage"  is  reached 
good  works  are  useless.  In  opposition  to  these  heretics 
Eckehart  strongly  insists  on  the  doctrine  that  there  can 
never  be  a  time  when  good  works  are  not  necessary.  "No 
one  can  ever  arrive  at  a  point  in  this  life  when  he  need 
not  perform  exterior  good  works.  Above  all  the  person 
who  leads  a  contemplative  life  cannot  dispense  with  them ; 
he  must  share  his  abundance  with  others  through  the 


80Erfurt,  col.   64. 

31Pfeiffer,  611,  11;  179,  1. 

"Pfeiffer,  171,  14;   Sievers,  op.  cit.,  p.  404. 

^The  mark  was  formerly  a  half-pound  of  gold  or  silver. 

"Pfeiffer,  178,  35. 


82  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

exercises  of  the  active  life."35  "Christ  said,  'Let  your 
light  shine  before  men/36  He  meant  in  a  special  man- 
ner those  who  are  intent  on  contemplation  alone  and 
who  do  not  devote  themselves  to  any  moral  activity; 
those  also  who  think  it  unnecessary  to  exercise  themselves 
in  virtue,  because  they  have  passed  beyond  this  stage. 
It  was  not  to  such  that  Our  Lord  alluded  when  he  said 
The  seed  'fell  upon  good  ground;  and  being  sprung  up, 
yielded  fruit  a  hundredfold.'37  But  He  did  think  of  them 
when  He  said :  '  Every  tree  therefore  that  doth  not  yield 
good  fruit  shall  be  cut  down'  (Matt.  111:10). >'38  "If  a 
person  is  so  infirm  or  aged  as  not  to  be  able  to  perform 
corporal  works,  let  him  keep  to  interior  spiritual  works, 
such  as  good  will  and  love  of  God,  which  are  besides 
nobler  and  greater  in  the  sight  of  God  than  exterior 
works."39  "I  admit  that  a  person  in  actual  contempla- 
tion may  and  ought  to  omit  all  exterior  works  the  while 
he  is  in  the  state  of  contemplation;  but  afterwards  he 
should  again  exercise  himself  in  exterior  works,  for  no 
one  can  remain  continually  in  contemplation;  the  active 
life  must  take  the  place  of  the  contemplative."40 

In  connection  with  this  orthodox  teaching  on  good 
works,  Eckehart's  errors  on  the  same  subject  appear 
in  a  somewhat  strange  light.  His  interpretation  of  these 
words  of  Our  Lord:  "I  have  chosen  you  and  appointed 
you,  that  you  should  go  and  should  bring  forth  fruit,"41 
forms  the  eighteenth  condemned  article.42  "He  wishes 
to  say  that  we  ought  not  to  bring  forth  the  fruit  of 
exterior  acts  which  do  not  benefit  us,  but  the  fruit  of 
interior  works,  which  the  Father  who  dwells  in  us  effects 


85Pfeitfer,  607,  30. 

30Matt.  V,  16. 

37Luke  VIII,  8. 

38Pfeiffer,  19,  6. 

S9Sievers,  op.  cit.,  no.  6. 

40Pfeiffer,  608.  2. 

41John  XV,  6. 

42Afferamus  fructum  actuum  non  exteriorum,  qui  nos  bonos  non 
faciunt,  sed  actuum  interiorum,  quos  pater  in  nobis  manens  facit  et 
operatur. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  83 

and  produces.  "43  The  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  articles 
contain  the  erroneous  thought  that  exterior  works  are 
not  inspired  by  God.  ''God  does  not  really  suggest  an 
exterior  act,  since  it  can  prove  a  hindrance  to  the  soul. ' H4 
"An  exterior  act  is,  properly  speaking,  neither  good  nor 
divine,  nor  does  God  really  effect  or  produce  it."45  When 
interpreting  these  words  of  Wisdom,  "who  lovest  souls " 
(Wis.,  XI:27)  Eckehart  adds:  "This  is  what  is  implied 
-Thou  who  lovest  souls,  but  dost  not  love  exterior 
works.7'46  Such  statements  as  the  following  certainly 
contain  quietistic  principles:  "An  exterior  work  is 
neither  good,  nor  holy,  nor  blessed,  nor  unblessed  ";47 
"number  adds  little  to  the  value  of  the  prayer;  for  one 
Ave  said  with  a  whole  heart  and  a  detached  heart  is 
better  than  a  thousand  psalters  recited  orally.  "48  How 
can  propositions  such  as  these  be  reconciled  with  Ecke- 
hart 's  clear  and  decisive  teaching  of  the  necessity  of  good 
works  and  of  their  supernatural  merit?  To  say 
the  least  Eckehart  often  tries  his  reader's  patience  by 
his  inconsistency. 

The  Latin  works  extant  contain  but  little  on  the  sub- 
ject of  virtue  and  good  works.  The  proper  place  to  study 
Eckehart 's  doctrine  of  virtue  and  good  works  is  in  the 
German  sermons  and  treatises  that  aim  to  be  purely 
ethical. 


43Cues  manuscript,  Archiv  II,  p.  683. 

44Ibid.  This  is  the  sixteenth  condemned  proposition.  Deus  proprie 
non  precipit  actum  exteriorem. 

45Ibid.  This  is  the  seventeenth  condemned  proposition.  Actus 
exterior  non  est  proprie  bonus  nee  divinus,  nee  operatur  ipsum  deus 
proprie  neque  parit. 

"Erfurt,  col.  159.  Archiv  II,  p.  434.  The  nineteenth  condemned 
proposition:  Deus  animas  amat,  non  opus  extra. 

47Pfeiffer,  72,  23;  this  corresponds  to  the  seventeenth  proposition. 

*8Pfeiffer,  611,  25;   this  corresponds  to  the  nineteenth  proposition. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  SOUL 

God  never  created  anything  so  like  to  His  own  image 
as  the  human  soul.  "All  other  creatures  are  but  the 
footprints  of  God,  as  it  were,  but  the  soul  is  His  image. ' n 
It  is  in  virtue  of  this  likeness  that  * '  God  is  the  form  and 

^  the  soul  of  the  soul."  It  is  only  when  we  contemplate 
God  that  we  can  see  in  what  this  image  consists.  "The 
soul  is  threefold  in  its  powers  but  simple  in  its  nature. 
Although  the  soul  is  present  in  all  the  members  of  the 
body,  it  is,  nevertheless,  entire  in  each  member ;  hence  all 
the  members  of  the  body  form  one  simple  abode  of  the 

"  soul.  The  soul  also  possesses  a  certain  foreknowledge, 
and  forms  an  idea  in  advance  of  those  things  which  lie 
within  its  power.  All  that  can  be  said  of  God  is  found 
to  a  limited  extent  as  an  image  in  the  soul. '  '3 

Like  all  the  scholastics  Eckehart  considers  the  soul, 
which  is  simple  and  spiritual,  as  the  substantial  form 
of  the  body;  as  such  it  is  not  subject  to  the  conditions 
of  space  and  time.4  "The  soul  is  more  than  thousand- 
fold and  is,  nevertheless,  entire  in  every  member ;  in  the 
/fingers,  in  the  eyes,  the  heart,  and  in  every  part  of  every 
member,  whether  large  or  small. m  "If  a  man  have  a 
dear  friend  one  thousand  miles  away,  his  soul  and  all  its 
faculties  can  span  this  distance  and  there  love  his  friend. 
As  St.  Augustine  says :  The  soul  is  more  present  where 
it  loves  than  where  it  gives  life.  "6  "  Yea,  in  very  truth, 
that  which  is  a  thousand  miles  farther  away  from  me  than 
is  Jerusalem,  is  as  near  to  my  soul  as  my  own  body;  of 
that  I  am  as  certain  as  that  I  am  a  human  being. ' " 


'Pfeiffer,  11,  7. 

2Pfeiffer,  658,  22. 

'Pfeiffer,  386,  15. 

4Cf.  St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  LXXVI,  a.  8. 

•Pfeiffer,  397,  21. 

"Pfeiffer,  383,  28. 

'Pfeiffer,  257,  18. 

84 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  85 

The  soul  operates  by  means  of  its  faculties8  and  not 
through  its  nature.  The  lower  faculties,  which  Ecke- 
hart  designates  as  the  woman  of  the  soul,  are  the  reason 
(rationale),  the  irascible  powers  (irascibile),  and  the 
concupiscible  powers  (concupiscibile).9  The  higher  fac- 
ulties of  the  soul  are  the  memory  (memoria),  the  under- 
standing (intellectus),  and  the  will  (voluntas).  These 
he  calls  the  man  of  the  soul.  * '  The  memory  is  the  recep- 
tive faculty  for  all  the  other  faculties."10  "The  intellect 
emanates  first  from  the  soul,  next  the  will,  and  then  the 
other  powers  follow."11  "The  intellect  is  the  superior 
part  of  the  soul."12  The  first  object  of  our  knowledge, 
according  to  St.  Thomas,  is  the  quiddity  of  a  thing,  what 
it  is,  its  being,  and  this  is  the  proper  object  of  the  intel- 
lect,13 a  doctrine  which  Eckehart  expresses  as  follows: 
1 1  The  intellect  penetrates  into  the  being  of  the  thing 
before  it  considers  its  goodness,  or  power,  or  wisdom,  or 
whatever  is  accidental  ...  it  penetrates  into  the 
very  being,  where  it  apprehends  God  as  pure  being."14 
"Only  after  the  intellect  has  recognized  truje. being,  will 
it  be  at  rest  in  its  search,  and  form  an  opinion  on 
the  object  with  which  it  is  occupied.  So  long  as  the 
intellect  has  not  actually  found  the  true  being,  nor  really 
comprehended  its  true  basis,  so  that  it  can  say :  It  is  t his 
and  nothing  else,  so  long  is  it  lost  in  its  search,  and  will 
not  come  to  any  repose,  but  seeks  and  abstracts."15 

Like  many  great  scholastics  before  him,  Eckehart 
adopts  the  Aristotelian  distinction  of  the  active  reason 
and  the  passive  or  potential  reason.  These  are  not  to 
be  considered  as  two  different  faculties  opposed  to  each 
other,  but  as  two  distinct  phases  of  the  same  faculty.  He 


"Pfeiffer  4,  29.    St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  LXXIX,  a.  1;   LXXVII,  a.  1. 
'Pfeiffer,  70.  30.   St.  Thomas,  1  p.   qu.   LXXXI,  a.  1. 
"Pfeiffer,  383,  36. 
Pfeiffer,  255,  6. 
'Pfeiffer,  253    32. 

3St.  Thomas,  1  p.  qu.  LXXXVIII,  a.  3. 
'Pfeiffer,  110,  8;  383,  38. 
opfeiffer,  20,  23. 


86  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

calls  them  the  two  sons  of  the  intellect.16  "The  active 
reason  forms  an  image  of  exterior  things  from  which  it 
abstracts  all  that  is  material  and  accidental,  and  then 
(  conveys  this  abstract  image  to  the  passive  reason.  When 
^the  passive  intellect  has  been  thus  charged,  as  it  were, 
by  the  active  intellect,  it  retains  and  recognizes  objects 
within  itself.  However,  the  active  intellect  must 
enlighten  it  whenever  it  wishes  to  recall  them.17  The 
active  intellect  can  bring  forth  only  one  image  at  a 
•time,  but  when  God  acts  in  its  stead,  He  produces  simul- 
taneously a  variety  of  images  in  the  passive  intellect. " 
In  another  place  Eckehart  mentions  three  forms  of  the 
intellect.  "Man  possesses  an  active,  a  passive,  and  a 
potential  intellect.  The  first  is  always  ready  to  effect 
something,  either  in  God  or  in  creatures  for  God's  honor 
and  glory;  that  is  its  province;  it  is  called  the  active 
intellect.  When,  however,  God  undertakes  this  work, 
then  the  mind  must  hold  itself  passive.  The  potential 
intellect  is  directed  towards  both,  that  God's  operation 
and  the  passivity  of  the  mind  may  be  made  possible."19 
The  will  is  free  to  command  what  it  wants,  and  to 
forbid  what  it  does  not  want.20  God  Himself  respects 
this  freedom  of  the  will  and  does  not  force  it.  As  long 
as  the  soul  sojourns  in  the  body,  it  is  free  to  act  as  it 
pleases.21  Although  the  will  enjoys  this  liberty,  it  re- 
quires the  assistance  of  the  other  faculties  and  even  of 
faith.  They  produce  this  effect  in  the  will,  because  the 
simple  nature  of  the  soul  is  common  to  all  its  powers.22 
Occasionally  Eckehart  refers  to  the  strife  between  the 
Thomists  and  the  Scotists  as  to  which  is  more  excellent, 
the  intellect  or  the  will,  or  rather  which  of  these  facul- 
ties unites  man  to  God.  "The  masters  ask  whether  the 


16Pfeiffer,  110,  35. 
17Pfeiffer,  19,  22. 
18Pfeiffer,  20,  1. 
"Pfeiffer,  16,  35. 
!nPfeiffer   384,  1. 
21Pfeiffer,  509,  35. 
"Pfeiffer,  384,  18. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  87 

will  or  the  intellect  contains  the  germ  of  eternal  life. 
The  will  has  two  operations — desire  and  love.  The  work 
of  the  intellect  is  simple  and  therefore  better;  its  object 
is  to  know,  and  it  never  rests  until  it  comes  into  con- 
tact with  what  it  knows.  "23  "  There  is  question  as  to 
which  is  superior,  the  intellect  or  the  will.  The  superior- 
ity of  the  intellect  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  understands 
things  which  at  present  differ  from  one  another.  It  is 
through  this  understanding  alone  that  the  will  effects 
anything.  .  .  .  And  because  the  operation  of  the 
intellect  stops  here,  the  power  of  the  will  must  now  shine 
forth  in  this  light  and  in  the  greatness  of  faith.  Then, 
too,  the  will  seeks  to  rise  above  all  intelligence.  This 
constitutes  the  superiority  of  the  will.  .  .  .  The 
intellect  now  comes  forth  to  perceive.  It  differentiates, 
and  classifies,  and  places.  When  it  has  reached  the  sum- 
mit of  its  power,  there  yet  remains  a  higher  field  into 
which  it  cannot  penetrate  and  which  it  recognizes  as 
higher.  This  it  communicates  to  the  will  in  virtue  of  the 
unity  of  its  nature  and  not  in  virtue  of  its  power.  With 
this  knowledge  it  elevates  the  will  into  this  higher  field, 
all  through  the  unity  of  its  nature.  In  this  respect  the 
understanding  is  superior  to  the  will.  But  the  will  is 
superior  as  regards  equality — there  the  will  is  at  its 
highest  and  is  a  recipient  from  the  Supreme  Good,  which 
is  God  Himself. >'24 

The  lower  faculties  act  as  mediums  between  the  higher 
faculties  and  the  outer  senses  and  "therefore  they  ap- 
proach close  to  these  latter.  What  the  eye  sees  or  the 
ear  hears,  that  particular  sense  presents  to  the  desires 
or  concupiscible  powers.  If  the  image  is  properly 
received,  it  is  offered  to  the  second  power,  the  considera- 
tion, the  irascible  power.  After  this  has  contemplated 
the  image,  it  presents  it  to  the  reason,  the  power  which 
differentiates.  Thus  the  image  is  constantly  refined  for 

"Pfeiffer,  106,  29. 
"Pfeiffer,  384,  6. 


88  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

reception  into  the  higher  faculties/'25  In  the  lower  con- 
sciousness man  is  wholly  dependent  on  the  experience  of 
the  senses;  his  knowledge  is  always  mediated  by  images, 
is  always  marked  by  a  here  and  a  now.  When  the  powers 
of  the  soul  come  into  contact  with  an  object,  they  abstract 
from  this  object  an  image  or  a  likeness  which  they  ideate. 
In  this  manner  they  gain  their  knowledge  of  an  object; 
therefore  man  possesses  no  innate  ideas,  his  intellect  is  a 
veritable  tabula  rasa.  "  Nothing  can  penetrate  farther 
than  this  into  the  soul;  the  soul,  moreover,  does  not 
occupy  itself  with  any  object  whose  image  it  has  not 
ideated.  It  is  only  by  means  of  the  idea  present  in  the 
mind  .  .  .  that  the  soul  can  approach  near  to  crea- 
tures. If  the  soul  wishes  to  recognize  a  stone,  a  rose,  or 
a  human  being,  or  anything  whatever,  it  must  always 
begin  by  recalling  a  previous  concept.  Only  in  this  man- 
ner can  the  soul  unite  itself  closely  with  an  object.  But 
when  such  an  image  is  formed,  it  must  necessarily  enter 
from  without,  through  the  senses.26 
\  Since  the  soul  can  form  no  image  of  itself,  it  cannot, 

^consequently,  know  itself.  No  human  skill  has  ever 
fathomed  what  the  soul  is.  "The  word  soul  tells  us  as 
little  about  the  nature  of  the  soul,  as  the  name  God  does 
about  the  Divinity. >m  "As  little  as  God  can  be  com- 
prehended under  names  and  words,  just  as  little  can 
the  soul  be  comprehended  under  images  and  forms."28 
"What  is  the  nature  of  the  soul?  Note  well:  The  final 

\  certainty  in  the  soul  regarding  itself  is  its  simple  nature. 

xThe  nature  of  the  soul  is  so  simple  that  space  cannot 
hinder  it."29*  "We  may  know  a  little  about  the  soul, 
but  what  it  really  is  in  its  basis,  nobody  knows.  What- 
ever we  know  about  this  must  be  acquired  through  super- 
natural means ;  it  must  be  the  work  of  grace. ' m 

25Pfeiffer,  383,  12. 

26Pfeiffer,  5,  11. 

"Sievers,  op.  cit,  no.  16;   Pfeiffer,  5,  19,  24. 

88Pfeiffer  405   1. 

29Pfeiffer,  383,  24. 

"Pfeiffer,  228,  15. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  89 

The  soul  has  two  faces.  "The  upper  one  beholds  God 
continually  while  the  lower  one  gazes  downwards  and 
directs  the  senses.  The  former  is  the  highest  point  of 
the  soul ;  it  dwells  in  eternity  and  has  nothing  to  do  with 
time,  for  it  knows  nothing  either  of  time  or  of  the  body. 
In  this  apex  is  concealed  something  like  the  source  of  all 
good  and  like  a  bright  light  that  always  illumines,  and 
like  a  burning  fire  that  always  burns,  and  this  fire  is 
naught  else  but  the  Holy  Spirit. "31  "The  soul  is  so 
noble,  because  it  reaches  out  to  time  and  eternity.  If 
it  inclines  more  to  temporal  things,  it  becomes  fickle; 
if  it  keeps  to  what  is  eternal,  it  grows  steadfast  and 
strong;  and  with  the  strength  and  steadfastness  it  rises 
above  temporal  things.  "32  These  two  faces  correspond 
to  what  St.  Augustine  calls  the  higher  and  lower  reason, 
the  former  of  which  is  intent  on  the  contemplation  of 
things  eternal,  while  the  lower  is  busied  with  the  dis- 
posal of  temporal  affairs. 

It  is  in  this  basis  of  the  soul,  whither  no  creature  has 
ever  penetrated,  that  the  faculties  originate.  Eckehart 
calls  this  basis  of  the  soul  by  various  names  as,  "apex 
of  the  soul,"33  " spark/'34  " glimmering, "35  "mens,"™ 
"man  of  the  soul,"37  "reason,"38  "a  power  of  the  soul  in 
which  God  is  ever  present,"39  "it  is  the  highest  and  the 
lowest  in  the  soul,"40  "a  nameless  something,"41  "a 
light."42  "I  have  at  times  said  that  there  is  a  power 
in  the  soul  which  alone  is  free.  Sometimes  I  have  called 
it  a  tabernacle  of  the  spirit;  sometimes  a  light  of  the 
mind;  sometimes  a  spark;  but  I  say  now  it  is  neither 

''Pfeiffer,  59,  4;  250,  37. 
12Sievers,  op.  cit.,  no.  11. 
"Pfeiffer,  52,  39. 
"Pfeiffer,  139,  7;   392,  20. 
"Pfeiffer,  79,  6. 
"Pfeiffer,  670  38. 
"Pfeiffer,  199,  25. 
"Sievers,  op.  cit,  p.  377. 
"Pfeiffer,  44,  25. 
"Pfeiffer,  207,  5. 
"Pfeiffer,  306,  9. 
"Pfeiffer,  410,  35;  412,  25. 


90  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

.- 

this  nor  that;  it  is  higher  than  this  or  that,  higher  than 
the  heavens  above  the  earth."43  Eckehart  also  employs 
the  word  l  i  synteresis.  "44 

His  use  of  the  term  "scintilla" — the  spark — clearly 
shows  its  derivation  from  "synteresis";  he  describes  it 
as  a  light  from  above.45  He  also  speaks  of  this  light  as 
%  something  uncreated,  as  closely  akin  to  God.  "I  have 
often  spoken  of  a  light  in  the  soul  which  is  uncreated 
and  uncreatable. "46  "I  affirm  that  there  is  something 
above  the  soul's  created  nature  ...  so  clearly  re- 
lated to  God  as  to  be  one  with  Him.  .  .  .  All  that  is 
created  or  is  creatable  is  nothing.  But  that  something 
is  far  removed  from  all  creation  and  from  all  that  can 
be  created."47  This  doctrine  of  the  uncreated  something 
in  the  soul  is  the  twenty-seventh  article  condemned  by 
John  XXII.48 

Here  it  might  be  asked  how  the  soul  apprehends  God. 
"The  cherubim  denote  wisdom,  that  is  knowledge,  which 
brings  God  into  the  soul  and  leads  the  soul  to  God. 
But  it  cannot  bring  the  soul  into  God.  Therefore  God 
does  not  perform  His  divine  work  in  the  cognitive  faculty, 
by  which  the  soul  comprehends  things  according  to  time 
and  space,  for  He  operates  as  God  and  in  a  divine  man- 
ner. Then  the  highest  power,  which  is  love,  comes  for- 
ward and  enters  into  God,  and  leads  the  soul  with  the  cog- 
nitive power  and  with  all  its  faculties  into  God  and  unites 
them  to  Him.  Then  God  operates  above  the  powers  of  the 
soul,  not  as  in  the  soul,  but  as  in  God."49  "Nothing  so 
prevents  the  soul  from  knowing  God  as  time  and  space. 


"Pfeiffer,  46,  3. 

"Pfeiffer,  113,  40.  All  the  scholastics  from  the  days  of  William  of 
Auvergne  designate  the  synteresis  as  "scintilla  conscientiae."  St. 
Bonaventure  defines  it  as  "apex  mentis  seu  scintilla."  Hermann  of 
Fritzlar  speaks  of  it  as  a  power  or  a  faculty  in  the  soul. 

*6R.  Leiher,  Name  und  Begriff  der  Synteresis.  Philosophisches 
Jahrbuch,  1912  p.  374. 

48Pfeiffer,  193,  16. 

47Pfeiffer,  234,  36;   286,  17. 

"Aliquid  est  in  anima,  quod  est  increatum  et  increabile;  si  tota 
anima  esset  talis,  esset  increata  et  increabilis,  et  hoc  est  intellectus. 

"Pfeiffer,  153,  26. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  91 

Since  time  and  space  are  parts  and  God  is  one,  the  soul 
in  order  to  know  God  must  transcend  time  and  space ;  for 
God  is  neither  this  nor  that,  as  creatures  are  in  their 
manif oldness ;  God  is  one.  If  the  soul  is  to  perceive 
God,  it  must  not  perceive  anything  in  time;  for  while 
the  soul  regards  time  or  space  or  any  image,  it  can 
never  behold  God.  That  the  eye  may  recognize  color,  it 
must  itself  be  without  any  color.  If  the  soul  is  to  know 
God,  it  must  have  no  intercourse  with  nothingness.  He 
who  knows  God  knows  also  that  all  creatures  are  noth- 
ing. When  one  creature  is  compared  with  another  it 
may  appear  beautiful  and  to  be  something,  but  when  it 
is  compared  with  God  it  is  nothing."50  It  is  only  when 
the  soul  casts  itself  into  the  depths  of  its  own  nothing- 
ness that  it  can  through  grace  know  God  as  He  is  ;51  then 
will  God  so  diffuse  Himself  into  the  soul  that  the  light| 
of  His  presence  will  overflow  into  the  soul's  faculties.52 
And  this  is  the  Divine  Birth  in  the  soul. 

A  summary  of  Eckehart's  teaching  in  regard  to  the 
soul  shows  it  to  embrace  the  following  points:  (1)  The 
human  soul  is  an  image  of  the  triune  God  in  its  three- 
fold power  and  its  simple  nature.  (2)  The  soul  is  simple 
and  spiritual,  the  substantial  form  of  the  body.  (3)  The 
soul  operates  through  its  faculties.  (4)  The  lower  facul- 
ties are  the  reason,  the  irascible,  and  the  concupiscible 
powers.  (5)  The  higher  faculties  are  the  memory,  the 
intellect,  and  the  will.  The  memory  is  the  receptive 
power.  The  intellect  is  the  superior  part  of  the  soul ;  its 
object  is  to  know.  Eckehart  distinguishes  between  the 
active  and  the  passive  intellect.  The  will  is  free,  even 
God  does  not  force  it.  (6)  The  lower  faculties  act  as 
mediums  between  the  higher  faculties  and  the  outer 
senses.  (7)  The  soul  depends  for  its  knowledge  on  the 
experience  of  the  senses,  consequently  it  can  never  know 


"Pfeiffer,  222,  24. 
B1Pfeiffer,  513,  12. 
"Pfeiffer,  11,  35. 


92  MEISTEB  ECKEHART 


: 


itself.  (8)  The  basis  of  the  soul,  in  which  God  is  ever 
resent,  is  something  uncreated  and  uncreatable ;  a  prop- 
osition condemned  as  heretical.  (9)  The  soul  does  not 
apprehend  God  by  the  cognitive  power  but  by  love,  which 
leads  the  soul  with  all  its  faculties  into  God  and  unites 
it  to  Him. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   M.YSTIC  UNION   OB  THE  DIVINE  BIRTH  IN   THE  SOUL 

The  soul's  constant  and  insatiable  longing  for  happi- 
ness, its  restless,  yea,  often  fruitless  search  after  this 
highest  good  in  the  things  of  earth,  renders  it  all  the 
more  eager  to  attain  it  where  alone  it  can  be  found — in 
God.  Eckehart  expresses  this  earnest  desire  of  the  soul 
in  many  places  of  his  works.  "The  soul  is  created  for 
so  high  and  great  a  good  that  it  cannot  possibly  be  at 
rest,  but  is  ever  hastening  forward  to  arrive  at  this)  » 
eternal  bliss,  which  is  God,  and  for  which  alone  it  was 
created. m  "If  God  were  to  give  my  soul  all  that  He 
ever  created  or  may  yet  create,  and  did  not  give  Himself, 
my  soul  should  not  be  content  and  I  could  not  be  happy.  "2 

Eckehart  terms  this  union  of  the  soul  with  God  the  > 
Divine  Birth  in  the  soul  of  the  just.  All  his  thoughts 
seem  to  circle  continually  around  this,  for  him,  all- 
important  truth  and  to  seek  for  some  new  expression, 
some  new  means,  of  making  this  Divine  Birth  intelligible 
to  his  hearers.  The  birth  of  God  in  the  soul  and  of  the 
soul  in  God  is  of  such  paramount  importance,  he  teaches, 
that  it  is  for  this  alone  that  we  pray  and  fast,  and  per- 
form good  works ;  in  a  word  are  Christians,  and  for  this 
alone  God  became  incarnate.  The  Sacred  Scriptures 
were  written  and  the  world  was  created  that  this  twofold 
birth  might  take  place — God  in  the  soul  and  the  soul 
in  God.3 

Since  this  intimate  union  with  God  is  the  ardent  desire 
of  the  soul,  how,  it  may  be  asked,  can  the  soul  realize 
this  innate  longing?  The  preceding  chapter  shows  how 
the  soul  by  means  of  its  various  faculties  and  powers 
comes  into  contact  with  the  exterior  world.  The  soul 
projects  itself  through  the  senses  outwards  to  creatures, 

'Pfeiffer,  178,  9. 
'Pfeiffer,  32  10. 
"Sievers,  op.  eit,  p.  377;  Pfeiffer,  104,  27. 

93 


94  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

by  whom  it  is  drawn  downwards;  hence  the  soul  that 
wishes  to  arrive  at  the  mystic  union  must  follow  a  course 
directly  opposite.  It  must  withdraw  and  concentrate 
itself  inwards  and  then  take  an  ascending  direction.  The 
deep  abyss  of  the  soul  in  which  God  reposes  never  opens 
outwardly;  it  is  the  sanctum  sanctorum  open  only  to 
God,  into  which  no  image  of  the  exterior  world  can  pene- 
ytrate  to  disturb  its  sacred  stillness.  Here  in  this  abyss 
of  the  soul,  God  the  Father  begets  His  only-begotten  Son. 
But  how  and  when  does  this  birth  of  the  Son  take  place? 
This  occurs  only  when  the  soul  wholly  renounces  the 
affairs  of  time  and  completely  abandons  itself  to  God 
and  His  providence.  Hence  we  can  readily  see  why 
Eckehart  lays  such  great  stress  on  the  virtues  of  renun- 
ciation and  self-denial.  Before  his  time,  the  Victorines, 
and  after  him,  all  the  great  German  mystics,  for  instance, 
Tauler  and  Suso,  as  well  as  the  noted  Spanish  mystics, 
St.  John  of  the  Cross  and  the  seraphic  St.  Teresa,  not  to 
speak  of  innumerable  others  since  their  day,  all  lay  down 
the  same  rule  of  renunciation  even  to  death  of  self,  the 
sine  qua  non  of  the  mystic  union. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  a  life  which  withdraws  itself 
from  the  shadow  of  deliberate  faults,  which  labors  to 
free  itself  from  imperfections  and  all  returns  of  self- 
love,  which  submits  besides  to  the  purifying  fire  of  a 
severe  and  continual  mortification,  which  nourishes  itself 
by  prayer,  and  becomes  habitually  more  recollected  and 
fervent;  such  a  life  predisposes  more  than  any  other  to 
the  highest  graces  of  prayer.  Such  a  preparation,  if  it 
is  not  sufficient,  is  at  least  morally  necessary.4 

This  preparation  although  negative,  is  in  reality  a  very 
active  conflict  with  self,  a  battle  unto  death  against  dis- 
orderly inclinations,  against  all  that  opposes  the  reign 
of  Christ  in  the  soul.  Eckehart  considers  total  renuncia- 
tion, the  setting  aside  of  every  form  of  egoism,  and  the 

*Le"once  de  Grandmaison,  La  Religion  personelle.    Etudes,  CXXXV, 
p.  333. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  95 

giving  up  of  every  creature  in  order  to  arrive  at  union 
with  the  Divinity  as  the  supreme  end  of  religion.  He 
teaches  that  suffering  is  the  most  efficacious  means  to 
attain  this  end.5  The  first  requisite  for  him  who  wishes 
to  be  united  to  God  is  ' i  that  he  deny  himself  in  all  things, 
that  he  be  attached  to  nothing,  that  his  senses  .  .  . 
dwell  on  no  creature  either  in  time  or  in  eternity."6 
'  *  God  will  not  be  born  except  in  a  soul  that  has  trampled 
all  greatness  under  foot. ' n  That  God  may  operate  freely 
in  a  soul  this  renunciation  must  be  complete,  it  must 
extend  to  all  things ;  such  a  one  rests  upon  pure  nothing- 
ness." "True  renunciation  demands  that  in  all  that 
may  happen,  whether  agreeable  or  disagreeable,  honor- 
able or  disgraceful,  the  spirit  be  as  immovable  as  a  great 
mountain  in  a  light  breeze."9  "And  no  one  can  come  to 
this  union  so  long  as  he  is  affected  by  the  least  temporal 
thing,  although  it  is  no  more  than  the  point  of  a  needle 
can  hold.  No  one  can  enter  into  the  Godhead  unless 
he  is  as  void  as  he  was  when  he  emanated  from  God."10 

This  renunciation  to  be  complete  must  extend  not  only 
to  exterior  things,  but  to  oneself  as  well.  "Our  souls,  too,  .-' 
must  be  sorrowful  even  unto  death,  until  all  self-will 
and  self-interest  be  killed  within  us.  When  the  soul  has 
died  thus  to  its  desires  and  its  own  interests  and  is  buried 
in  God,  then  it  is  hidden  from  and  unknown  to  all  crea- 
tures and  it  can  never  again  be  saddened."11  In  this 
manner  must  the  soul  die  to  a  sensual,  agitated  world, 
liable  to  corruption  and  destined  to  perish.  Not  once 
only  must  the  poor  struggling  soul  die  this  death,  but, 
as  Tauler  says,  a  thousand  deaths  will  be  necessary  before  ' 
the  soul  is  wholly  purified.  Such  a  soul  takes  events,  even 

6Lichtenber-ger,  Le  Mysticisme  Allemand.  Revue  des  Cours  et 
Conferences,  1910,  p.  684. 

•Pfeiffer,  197,  18. 

7Pfeiffer,  151,  11. 

'Pfeiffer,  490,  14.  Everything  outside  of  God  is  not  God,  therefore 
nothing  (non-being). 

'Pfeiffer,  486,  36. 

"Pfeiffer,  77,  23. 

"Pfeiffer  242   19. 


96  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

untoward  ones,  from  whatever  source  they  come,  as  s§nt 
by  God  for  its  greater  sanctification.  "You  must  know 
that  to  those  who  have  given  themselves  to  God  and  with 
all  diligence  seek  His  will,  whatever  God  gives  them  is 
necessarily  the  best;  you  may  be  as  certain  of  this  as 
that  God  lives.  Should  something  else  seem  better,  yet 
it  could  not  be  so  good  for  thee,  for  God  wants  it  in  this 
way  and  not  in  that,  and  therefore  this  way  must  neces- 
sarily be  the  best  for  thee.'712  This  mystic  death  is  an 
experience  common  to  all  the  mystics.  St.  Teresa  fre- 
quently refers  to  a  period  when  all  preceding  graces  are 
forgotten,  to  a  state  of  death,  of  troubles,  of  disgust, 
stupor,  and  indifference,  a  state  in  which  the  soul  is  pow- 
erless to  pray;  nevertheless  it  continues  its  accustomed 
exercise  of  piety  and  virtue.13  St.  John  of  the  Cross 
treats  of  this  mystic  death  in  the  Two  Nights  of  the  Soul. 
Perhaps  no  one  has  left  a  more  graphic  description  of 
this  painful  state  than  Bl.  Henry  Suso. 

Eckehart  does  not  for  an  instant  suppose  that  this 
continual  self-denial  implies  no  feeling  on  our  part. 
"Now  our  good  people  say  we  ought  to  become  so  perfect 
that  no  love  can  move  us,  and  that  we  must  be  impas- 
sable to  love  and  sorrow.  They  wrong  us ;  I  say  there 
never  was  a  saint  so  great  that  he  could  not  be  moved  by 
events.  Thou  imaginest  because  words  please  or  dis-- 
please  thee,  that  thou  art  imperfect?  Such  is  not  the 
case ;  Christ  Our  Lord  felt  them,  as  He  showed  when  He 
said:  'My  soul  is  sorrowful  even  unto  death.'  Words 
pained  him  so  much,  that  if  the  sorrows  of  all  creatures 
fell  upon  one  creature,  they  would  not  be  so  great  as 
was  Our  Lord's  sorrow;  this  was  on  account  of  the  nobil- 
ity of  His  nature  and  the  sacred  union  of  the  divine  and 
human  natures.  Therefore,  I  say,  there  never  was  and 
there  never  will  be  a  saint  whom  sorrow  does  not  pain 


12Pfeiffer,  134,  8. 

"Way  of  Perfection,  ch.  XXVIII;   Interior  Castle,  Sixth  Mansion, 
ch.  I,  3,  13,  14. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  97 

and  love  does  not  please.'*14  And  all  this  renunciation 
must  be  practised  for  God  alone,  without  any  thought  of 
reward,  abandoning  all  such  considerations  to  His  good 
pleasure.  Eckehart  calls  such  souls  merchants,  "who/ 
fast,  watch,  pray,  and  perform  other  good  works  and  " 
this  only  that  the  Lord  may  give  them  something  in 
return,  or  do  something  that  is  pleasing  to  them;  these 
are  all  merchants. "15  "A  devout  person  must  not  seek 
himself  in  his  good  works,  but  God's  honor  alone.  So 
long  as  in  thy  good  works  thou  art  intent  on  thyself,  or 
on  one  person  more  than  on  another,  so  long  God's  will 
is  not  thy  will."16 

"What  is  the  prayer  of  a  heart  so  completely  detached? 
I  answer :  Detachment  and  simplicity  cannot  in  fact 
pray.  For  he  who  prays,  either  asks  God  to  grant  him 
something  or  else  he  desires  that  God  take  something 
away  from  him.  But  the  wholly  detached  heart  desires 
nothing  and  possesses  nothing  from  which  it  wishes  to 
be  delivered.  Hence  it  is  void  of  all  prayer,  and  its 
prayer  consists  only  in  being  one  with  God."17  This  last 
quotation  embodies  some  of  the  principles  of  Quietism. 
The  Quietist  demands  that  when  the  soul  is  in  the  state 
of  "quietude"  the  mind  be  wholly  inactive;  that  it  no 
longer  think  or  act  on  its  own  account,  but  remain  passive 
while  God  acts  within  it.  In  fact  the  very  desire  of 
activity  is  offensive  to  God,  one  must  abandon  himself 
entirely  to  God.18  The  great  virtue  of  the  Quietists  is 
conformity  to  the  will  of  God,  complete  abandonment, 
literally  asking  nothing,  desiring  nothing.  It  will  be 
noted  that  seven19  of  the  condemned  propositions  contain 
quietistic  tendencies.  Four  (XVI,  XVII,  XVIII,  XIX) 
which  relate  more  particularly  to  good  works  are  men- 

•Pfeiffer,  52,  18. 
8Pfeiffer,  34,  12. 
•Pfeiffer,  55,  39. 

'Pfeiffer,  490,  27;  Biittner,  op.  cit,  p.  27. 

8E.   A.   Pace,  Quietism.    Catholic   Encyclopedia  XI,  p.   608.    New 
York,  1913. 

"Articles  VIII,  IX,  XIV,  XVI,  XVII,  XVIII,  XIX. 


98  MEISTER   ECKEHART 

tioned  in  the  chapter  on  "  Virtue  and  Good  Works, "  while 
the  eighth  is  found  in  the  chapter  on  "Sin  and  the  Re- 
demption. ' '  The  following  corresponds  to  the  ninth  prop- 
osition:20 "I  reflected  lately  whether  I  ought  to  take  or 
to  desire  anything  of  God.  I  shall  indeed  consider  it 
well;  for  were  I  to  accept  anything  from  God,  I  should 
be  beneath  God  as  a  servant  beneath  his  master.  We 
shall  not  be  thus  in  eternal  life."21 

Mystic  writers  lay  great  stress  on  the  cessation  of  dis- 
\cursive  action ;  for  there  can  be  no  mystic  intuition  until 
^all  conscious  and  reflective  thought  ceases,  until  the  spirit, 
void  of  created  images,  withdraws  and  concentrates  itself 
in  its  very  abyss.  It  is  here  in  the  basis  of  the  soul  that 
God  dwells  and  where  the  void  and  passive  spirit  plunges 
into  the  uncreated  image  of  God  to  seek  peace  and  rest. 
This  is  why  Eckehart  calls  the  state  of  passivity  the 
secret  passage  of  the  soul  to  the  Divinity.  In  his  writ- 
ings he  frequently  refers  to  this  interior  void  and  passiv- 
ity of  the  soul.  "This  know  for  certain;  if  anyone 
else  than  Jesus  alone  wishes  to  speak  in  this  temple,  then 
Jesus  is  silent,  as  though  He  were  not  at  home  in  the 
soul,  for  there  are  strange  guests  present  with  whom  the 
soul  prefers  to  converse.  But  if  Jesus  is  to  speak,  the 
\soul  must  be  solitary  and  silent  if  it  desires  to  hear 
Him."22  "Thou  canst  not  without  great  injury  to  thy- 
self turn  away  from  this  state  to  another."23  The  more 
void  of  images  thou  art,  the  more  receptive  thou  wilt  be 
for  His  operations ;  and  the  more  thou  withdrawest  thy- 
self inwardly  and  art  unmindful  of  all  things,  the  nearer 
thou  art  to  this  operation."24 

The  mystical  union  of  the  soul  with  God,  or  as  Ecke- 

20Ego  nuper  cogitavi,  utrum  ego  vellem  aliquid  recipere  a  deo  vel 
desiderare:  ego  volo  de  hoc  valde  bene  deliberare,  quia  ubi  ego  essem 
accipiens  a  deo,  ibi  essem  ego  sub  eo  vel  infra  eum,  sicut  unus  famulus 
vel  servus,  et  ipse  sicut  dominus  in  dando  et  sic  non  debemus  esse  in 
eterna  vita. 

21Pfeiffer,  205   36. 

"Pfeiffer,  36,  30. 

23Pfeiffer,  27,  16. 

"Pfeiffer,  7,  39. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  99 


hart  calls  it,  the  Divine  Birth  in  the  soul,  depends  entirely 
on  God;  no  human  effort  can  effect  this  transcendin 
grace.  The  mystic  feels  he  is  not  the  master  of  these 
states,  neither  in  the  beginning,  the  middle,  nor  the  end, 
since  they  appear  without  any  effort  on  his  part,  sud- 
denly, and  apparently  without  any  cause.  All  that  he 
can  do  is  merely  negative,  is  to  remove  the  obstacles  that 
oppose  this  union;  he  can  in  some  measure  prepare  his 
soul  by  renunciation  and  great  purity  of  heart;  but  the 
union  itself  must  always  be  the  work  of  God  alone. 
"Whoever  reposes  in  God  does  not  enjoy  this  repose 
because  he  willed  it."25  "God  performs  this  work  in 
the  innermost  part  of  the  soul  and  so  secretly  that  neither  \  / 
angel  nor  saint  can  know  it ;  and  the  soul  itself  can  do  * 
nothing  but  remain  passive;  it  is  God's  work  alone." 
"If  this  birth  is  to  take  place  in  thee,  it  must  proceed 
entirely  from  God.  All  thy  efforts  must  lie  in  abeyance, 
all  thy  powers  must  serve  His  aims  and  not  thine;  if 
the  work  is  to  be  perfected,  God  alone  must  perform  it 
and  thou  must  merely  suffer  it."27 

Since  this  Divine  Birth  depends  solely  on  the  good 
pleasure  of  God,  He  can  give  it  and  can  withdraw  it 
just  as  He  wills.28  "The  more  frequently  this  birth 
occurs  in  the  soul,  the  more  closely  is  the  soul  united 
to  God.  God  is  born  in  the  soul  that  is  void  of  images 
by  revealing  Himself  to  it  in  a  new  manner,  ...  in 
an  enlightment  that  is  the  divine  light  itself."29  Knowl- 
edge and  union  with  God  are  the  two  elements  which 
the  mystic  experience  always  includes ;  a  knowledge  that 
has  nothing  intellectual,  nothing  discursive;  it  is  God 
revealing  Himself  to  the  soul  with  such  a  great  light 
that  it  overflows  into  the  faculties  and  even  into  the 
exterior  man.  Eckehart  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  God 


"Pfeiffer,  130,  35. 
28Pfeiffer,  160,  16. 
27Pfeiffer,  25,  11. 
2SPfeiffer,  18  2. 
"Biittner,  op.  cit.,  p.  27. 


100  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

created  the  soul  for  the  one  purpose  that  in  it  His 
beloved  Son  might  be  born ;  * '  and  whenever  and  wherever 
this  birth  takes  place,  it  is  more  joyful  to  God  than  the 

\  creation  of  heaven  and  earth,  because  the  soul  is  nobler 
and  greater  than  the  heavens. "80  "When  the  will  is  so 
united  as  to  be  uniform,  then  the  Eternal  Father  gen- 
erates His  only-begotten  Son  in  Himself  and  in  me.  Why 
in  Himself?  Why  in  me?  Then  I  am  one  with  Him  and 
'  He  cannot  exclude  me ;  in  this  operation  the  Holy  Ghost 
receives  from  me  as  well  as  from  God,  His  nature,  His 
;work,  and  His  being,  because  I  am  in  God.  If  He  does 
not  take  it  from  me  neither  does  He  take  it  from  God; 
He  cannot  exclude  me  in  any  way  whatever."31  How 
does  the  Father  generate  His  Son  in  the  soul?  As  crea- 
tures do  by  means  of  image  and  likeness?  "Not  at  all. 
But  in  the  very  same  way  that  He  produces  Him  eter- 
nally. God  the  Father  has  a  perfect  contemplation  and 
a  thorough  knowledge  of  Himself  but  not  by  means  of 
an  image.  And  thus  the  Father  generates  the  Son  in 
the  union  of  the  divine  nature.  In  this  manner  and  in 
no  other  does  God  the  Father  generate  His  Son  in  the 
basis  and  essence  of  the  soul  and  unite  it  to  Himself.  "• 

\  "God  enters  into  the  soul,  and  there  causes  a  vehement 
outburst  of  divine  love,  which  bears  the  soul  back  to  God. 
.  .  .  When  the  soul  with  its  intellect  comprehends 
anything  in  regard  to  God,  it  passes  this  knowledge  on  to 
the  will,  which  then  so  absorbs  it  as  to  become  one 
with  it.  Then  the  will  conveys  it  to  the  memory.  Thus 
is  God  borne  into  the  soul.  .  .  .  This  outburst  of 
divine  love  now  overflows  into  the  soul,  causing  the  higher 
faculties  to  diffuse  themselves  into  the  lower  ones  and 
these  into  the  outer  man  and  thus  elevating  him  out  of 
all  that  is  low,  so  that  he  desires  only  what  is  spiritual. 
For  as  the  spirit  operates  according  to  the  divine  impulse, 


•opfeiffer,  401,  5. 
"Pfeiffer,  55,  22. 
"Pfeiffer,  6,  5. 


MEISTER   ECKEHART  101 

so  must  the  exterior  man  operate  according  to  the  impulse 
of  the  spirit.  Oh,  wonder  after  wonder  when  I  reflect  on 
the  union  of  the  soul  with  God!  .  .  .  The  outburst 
of  divine  love  which  inundates  the  soul,  carries  it  out 
of  itself  into  its  origin,  into  God."33  "In  this  manner 
have  love  and  the  sweetness  of  devotion  allured  the  spirit 
out  of  itself  hy  means  of  the  simple  spark  it  possesses ! 
What  joy  for  the  soul!  I  can  only  say  that  the  glance 
which  passes  without  interruption  from  the  spirit  into 
the  simple  Godhead,  that  the  flux  which  flows  unceas- 
ingly from  the  Godhead  into  the  void  spirit,  so  com- 
pletely transforms  the  spirit  into  God  and  unites  it  to 
Him,  that  it  receives  as  an  equal  from  an  equal.  The 
delight  the  spirit  experiences  in  this  embrace  is  above- 
all  comprehension.  I  am  unable  to  say  aught  else  than 
that  the  spirit  is  then  at  the  summit  of  its  power  and 
greatness.  'm 

The  delight  which  the  divine  generation  operates  in  the 
soul  is  so  ineffable,  so  far  beyond  every  human  joy,  that 
an  experimental  knowledge  alone  can  give  us  any  idea 
of  the  superabundant  happiness  the  privileged  soul 
enjoys.  It  must  be  remembered  that  according  to  all  the 
great  mystics  God  often  favors  the  soul  when  in  ecstasy 
with  intellectual  visions,  such  that  "it  is  not  fitting  for 
man  while  living  in  the  world  to  understand  them  in  a 
way  that  can  be  told;"35  it  can  easily  be  comprehended, 
therefore,  how  the  mystic  falls  at  times  into  exaggera- 
tions of  speech.  Whenever  Eckehart  speaks  of  this 
delight,  transcending  all  earthly  bliss,  he  seems  to  find 
the  most  extravagant  language  too  cold,  too  inexpressive. 
"If  a  person  who  has  renounced  much  for  God  were  yet 
to  suffer  all  that  mankind  combined  has  ever  suffered, 
and  were  to  endure  this  until  death,  and  if  God  were  then 
to  give  him  one  instant  of  divine  contemplation,  his  joy 

"Pfeiffer,  385,  17. 
"Pfeiffer,  392,  19. 

85St.  Teresa,  The  Interior  Castle,  Sixth  Mansion,  ch.  IV,  5,  6,  12, 
13.   Way  of  Perfection,  ch.  XXXIV. 


102  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

would  be  so  great  that  all  his  suffering  and  poverty 
should  seem  to  him  too  little. "36  "He  whom  this  glance 
has  never  wounded,  his  soul  has  never  been  wounded  by 
the  love  of  God.  "37 

The  soul  favored  with  the  mystic  union  finds  itself 
powerfully  aided  in  overcoming  defects,  in  seeking  God 
alone,  in  being  freed  from  harassing  doubts,  by  the  divine 
light  which  illuminates  the  understanding  and  teaches 
the  soul  the  most  profound  truths.  But  let  us  hear 
Meister  Eckehart  tell  this  in  his  own  burning  words: 
"When  the  soul  is  wholly  united  to  God  and  plunged, 
as  it  were,  in  the  divine  nature,  it  sees  all  its  difficulties 
and  defects  and  unsteadiness  vanish ;  it  finds  itself  sud- 
denly renewed  in  a  divine  life,  well  ordered  in  all  its 
habits  even  in  its  very  virtues.'"8  "The  first  effect  that 
the  sight  of  the  Holy  Ghost  produces  in  the  soul  is  that 
all  its  sins  are  remitted,  and  the  soul  and  all  things  be- 
come contemptible  in  its  own  sight. "39  "I  believe  such  a 
person  incapable  of  falling  into  mortal  sin ;  for  he  would 
suffer  the  most  shameful  death  rather  than  commit  the 
least  mortal  sin.  .  .  .  Yea,  he  is  not  able  to  commit 
a  venial  sin  or  to  permit  it  knowingly  either  in  himself 
or  in  another,  when  he  can  prevent  it. ' M0  P  In  this  birth 
.  God  pours  Himself  with  such  abundance  of  light  into  the 
~x\  soul,  in  the  essence  and  basis  of  which  it  so  increases  as 
to  overflow  into  the  soul's  powers  and  even  into  the 
exterior  man.  .  .  .  Thou  canst  recognize  it  for  thy 
heart  feels  itself  strangely  moved  and  turned  away  from 
the  world ;  how  could  this  be  effected  except  through  the 
radiation  of  the  light,  which  is  so  softened,  which  pro- 
duces such  delight,  that  everything  else  which  is  not  God 
or  does  not  refer  to  Him  becomes  tiresome  to  thee? 
.  .  .  As  soon  as  God  with  His  truth  interiorly  touches 


iePfeiffer,  44,  34. 
87Pfeiffer,  401,  34. 
""Pfeiffer,  154,  3;  37,  27. 
S9Pfeiffer,  242,  26. 
40Pfeiffer,  10,  17. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  103 

the  basis  of  the  soul,  light  penetrates  into  the  faculties ; 
and  that  person  learns  more  in  an  instant  than  anyon 
could  teach  him."41  "Whatever  perfection  is  to  enter 
the  soul,  whether  of  divine  illumination,  of  grace,  or  of 
happiness,  must  all  come  through  this  birth,  there  is  no 
other  means.  Await  this  birth  in  thee  and  thou  wilt 
have  every  good,  every  delight,  every  comfort,  every 
being,  and  every  truth.  Neglect  this  one  thing  and  thou 
wilt  neglect  every  good  and  every  beatitude."42 

When  this  birth  takes  place  in  the  soul  then  "each  of 
its  faculties  becomes  an  image  of  the  Divine  Persons; 
the  will  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  cognitive  powers  of  the 
Son,  and  the  memory  of  the  Father.  And  its  nature 
becomes  the  likeness  of  the  divine  nature."43  "The  Son 
comes  into  the  soul  and  is  born  there  with  all  that 
God  can  accomplish — Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  all 
in  pure  being."44  "When  the  Father  generates  His  Son 
in  me,  then  I  am  the  same  son  and  not  another. '  *45  This' 
last  quotation  is  the  substance  of  the  twentieth  con- 
demned proposition.46  "The  Father  generates  me  as 
His  son.  .  .  .  All  that  God  does  is  one;  therefore 
He  generates  me  as  His  son  without  any  distinction";47 
this  is  the  twenty-second  condemned  article48  and  is 
closely  related  to  the  following:  "That  man  has  the 
same  essence,  and  nature,  and  substance,  and  wisdom,  and 
joy,  and  all  that  God  has.  Then  the  same  nature  of  the 
Son  is  his  and  is  in  him."49  "We  shall  be  so  transformed 
into  God  as  the  bread  in  the  sacrament  is  changed  into 
Our  Lord's  Body.  ...  I  shall  be  so  changed  into  Him 


"Pfeiffer  11,  35;  221,  24. 

42Pfeiffer,  11,  11. 

"Pfeiffer,  386,  34. 

"Pfeiffer,  166,  17. 

"Pfeiffer,  137,  16;  70,  12. 

**Quod  bonus  homo  est  unigenitus  films  del. 

*TPfeiffer,  205,  8. 

4SPater  general  me  suum  filium  et  eundem  filium.  Quicquid  deus 
operatur,  hoc  est  unum,  propter  hoc  generat  ipse  me  suum  filium  sine 
omni  distinctione. 

"Pfeiffer,  41,  24. 


104  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

that  He  will  make  me  the  same  being  as  Himself ;  by  the 
Jiving  God  it  is  true  that  then  there  will  be  no  distinc- 
tion. '  >5°  This  last  is  the  exact  text  of  the  tenth  condemned 
proposition.51  "The  man  who  rises  above  time  into  eter- 

^nity,  cooperates  with  God  in  all  that  He  created  thou- 
sands of  years  ago";52  here  is  found  substantially  the 
thirteenth  condemned  proposition.53 

Thus  man  appears  as  the  organ  of  the  perfect  self- 
birth  of  God.  Man  must  be  born  as  the  son  of  God,  for 
no  other  purpose  than  that  the  Son  of  God  may  thus 
be  born  in  human  shape  in  him.  Man  is  to  become  God 
in  order  that  in  him  God  may  become  man.  Here  we 
have  the  pantheistic  idea  of  emanation  which  lies  at 
the  root  of  all  this  mysticism.  In  this  theory  the  essen- 
tial difference  between  the  incarnation  of  God  in  Christ 
and  His  incarnation  in  all  other  men  disappears.  If, 
by  the  birth  of  the  Son  of  God  in  us,  we  become  sons  of 
God,  not  by  adoption,  but  by  nature;  it  is  not  easy  to 
understand  what  prerogative  Christ  enjoys  beyond  our- 
\  selves.  Indeed  Eckehart  teaches  that  we  possess  every- 

*\  thing,  without  exception,  that  God  imparted  to  Christ, 
the  Man-God.54  "All  that  God  ever  gave  His  only-begot- 
ten Son,  He  gave  the  same  to  me  and  no  less  perfectly 

Xthan  to  Him."55  Therefore  what  the  Holy  Scripture 
says  of  Christ  may  be  said  of  every  saintly  man.56 


oopfeiffer  205,  21. 

51Nos  transformamur  totaliter  in  deum  et  convertimur  in  eum; 
simili  modo,  sicut  in  sacramento  panis  convertitur  in  corpus  Christi; 
sic  ego  converter  in  eum,  quod  ipse  me  operatur  suum  esse  unum,  non 
simile;  per  viventem  deum  verum  est,  quod  ibi  nulla  est  distinctio. 

"Pfeiffer,  190,  37;  199,  12;  207,  13. 

B3Quicquid  proprium  est  divine  nature,  hoc  totum  proprium  est 
homini  iusto  et  divino;  propter  hoc  iste  homo  operatur  quicquid  deus 
operatur,  et  creavit  una  cum  deo  celum  et  terram,  et  est  generator 
verbi  eterni,  et  deus  sine  tali  nomine  nesciret  quicquam  facere. 

B4Stockl,  History  of  Philosophy,  p.  440.  Trans,  by  T.  A.  Finlay. 
London,  1903. 

S5Pfeiffer,  56,  18.  The  eleventh  condemned  proposition.  Quicquid 
deus  pater  dedit  filio  suo  unigenito  in  humana  natura,  hoc  totum  dedit 
michi:  hie  nihil  excipio,  nee  unionem  nee  sanctitatem,  sed  totum  dedit 
michi  sicut  sibi. 

B6The  twelfth  condemned  article.  Quicquid  dicit  sacra  scriptura  de 
Christo,  hoc  etiam  totum  verificatur  de  omni  bono  et  divino  homine. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  105 

In  one  of  his  sermons  on  the  following  text :  "  In  all 
things  I  sought  rest,"57  Eckehart  gives  some  of  the  dif- 
ferences between  the  active  and  the  contemplative  life. 
"The  contemplation  and  love  of  the  interior  person  may 
last  longer,  although  it  is  very  short  in  the  highest  con- 
templation, for  this  great  influx  of  light  cannot  last  long ; 
it  passes  quickly  with  the  speed  of  lightning.  St.  Augus- 
tine says:  The  ordinary  exercise  of  the  interior  per- 
son in  knowledge  and  love  may  continue  longer  than 
the  exercise  of  the  exterior  person.  The  life  of  the 
interior  man  in  its  repose  and  leisure  of  spirit  resem- 
bles somewhat  the  repose  of  the  eternal  Divine  Being. 
.  .  .  But  the  life  of  the  exterior  man  is  one  continual 
motion.  Therefore  Mary  sat  and  Martha  went  about 
the  house.  .  .  .  The  inner  life  is  more  at  peace  with 
itself  than  the  outer  life.  .  .  .  Hence  St.  Luke  says 
that  Martha,  who  represents  the  life  of  the  exterior  man, 
was  saddened  with  many  cares ;  although  all  this  is  done 
for  God,  nevertheless,  as  is  experienced  in  works  of 
mercy,  it  engenders  much  sadness.  The  inner  life  is 
beyond  measure  happier  than  the  exterior  life.  "58 

To  these  advantages  Eckehart  adds  that  the  contem- 
plative life  is  of  itself  more  desirable ;  it  is  wholly  directed 
towards  divine  things ;  it  is  confined  to  the  highest  mental 
powers ;  and  finally,  Our  Lord  Himself  has  said  that  Mary 
hath  chosen  the  better  part.  "Although  Mary  received 
the  praise  of  having  chosen  the  better  part,  still  Martha's 
life  was  also  very  useful,  for  she  served  Christ  and  His 
Apostles.  St.  Thomas  says:  'The  active  life  is  then 
something  better  than  the  contemplative,  when  we  pour 
out  in  love  and  action  what  we  have  garnered  in  contem- 
plation. '  But  one  and  the  same  thing  is  present :  we 
take  from  the  same  basis  in  which  contemplation  resides 
and  whose  content  we  fructify  in  action.  In  this  way 
the  real  aim  of  contemplation  is  accomplished.  Although 

57Ecclus.   XXIV,  11. 
"Pfeiffer,  329,  10. 


106  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

there  is  a  change  from  the  one  to  the  other,  it  is  all  the 
same  thing;  it  proceeds  from  the  same  source,  which  is 
God,  and  returns  again  to  the  same  source,  to  God.59 
Eckehart  seems  here  to  place  the  active  life  above  the 
contemplative,  but  this  is  only  apparent.  He  only  states 
with  St.  Thomas  that  when  contemplation  is  over,  the 
person  should  give  out  in  action  what  he  gathered  in 
contemplation. 

As  regards  Eckehart 's  doctrine  concerning  the  mystic 
union,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  he  agrees  with  all  the  mys- 
tics who  preceded  him  as  to  the  distinct  preparation 
necessary  on  the  part  of  man,  namely:  the  withdrawal 
and  concentration  of  all  the  faculties  in  the  basis  of  the 
soul;  complete  abandonment  to  God  in  all  things,  renounc- 
ing for  this  end  every  creature,  and  extending  this  self- 
denial  even  to  death  of  self.  Eckehart  shows  clearly 
that  this  self-annihilation  does  not  imply  the  death  of 
all  feeling,  for  one  will  always  experience  pleasure  when 
anything  delights,  and  pain  when  it  hurts.  Further- 
more, this  abandonment  must  lead  one  to  work  for  God 
alone  with  no  thought  of  anything  else,  not  even  to  ask 
for  any  grace  or  favor,  a  doctrine  the  Church  condemned 
as  quietistic.  In  the  third  place  the  soul  must  be  void 
of  all  images  and  be  passive,  if  God  is  to  speak.  Ecke- 
hart also  agrees  with  all  the  mystics  that  this  union 
depends  on  God  alone;  He  alone  can  give  and  take  it  as 
He  pleases.  Indeed  he  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the 
only  reason  why  God  created  the  soul  is  to  bring  forth 
in  the  soul  His  beloved  Son.  God  generates  His  Son 
in  the  soul  through  knowledge  and  love.  If  this  birth 
is  a  source  of  intense  joy  to  the  Father,  it  is  of  trans- 
cendent delight  to  the  soul,  a  delight  so  ineffable  that 
only  he  who  has  experienced  it  can  understand  and  know 
it.  The  effects  of  this  birth  are  truly  marvelous:  the 
soul  sees  its  defects  vanish;  it  seeks  God  alone ;  its  under- 
standing is  illuminated,  giving  it  a  clear  comprehension 

69Pfeiffer,  18,  19. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  107 

of  the  most  profound  truths ;  in  a  word,  it  is  a  source  of 
perfection. 

Eckehart  does  not  understand  the  sonship  produced  in 
the  mystic  union  as  that  of  adopted  son  of  God  but  as 
a  son  of  God  by  nature.  There  is  absolutely  no  distinc- 
tion between  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God  and  the  soul- 
in  whom  this  divine  generation  has  taken  place.  Hence 
this  doctrine  of  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God  contains 
seven  of  the  propositions  condemned  by  the  Church,  the 
X,  XI,  XII.  XX,  XXI,  XXII.  It  need  not  be  surprising 
that  pantheistic  expressions  occur  in  this  part  of  Ecke- 
hart's  teaching,  as  the  subject  of  the  ultimate  return 
of  the  soul  into  God  has  frequently  proved  a  danger  for 
mystical  speculation. 


CHAPTER  X 

CONCLUSION 

The  preceding  chapters  have  shown  that  Eckehart 
is  a  scholastic  as  well  as  a  mystic,  and  that  although 
several  of  his  doctrines  have  been  condemned  by  the 
Church,  he  was  not  personally  a  heretic;  hence  he  can- 
not be  brought  into  any  active  connection  with  the  here- 
tics of  his  day.  He  was  a  child  of  his  time;  and 
doubtless,  the  great  religious  ferment  and  the  variety 
of  doctrines  abroad  had  some  influence  on  his  method 
of  expressing  his  ideas.  Bohmer  believes  that  the  fact 
of  a  special  bull  being-  issued  to  condemn  a  number  of 
Eckehart 's  propositions  without  any  reference  to  former 
decisions,  is  sufficient  proof  that  he  was  not  considered 
as  belonging  to  any  heretical  sect,  and  therefore  not 
one  of  the  Brethren  of  the  Free  Spirit.1 

Is  Meister  Eckehart  a  precursor  of  the  Protestant 
Eeformation  of  the  sixteenth  century?  This  is  the  ques- 
tion that  remains  to  be  answered.  Before  replying,  let 
us  glance  at  some  different  opinions  on  this  subject. 
Ullmann,  after  stating  that  although  Eckehart 's  doctrine 
could  in  persons  of  a  less  intellectual  and  profound  nature 
produce  the  most  morally  destructive  effects,  adds,  how- 
ever, that  the  penetration  and  boldness  of  his  genius, 
as  well  as  the  deep  piety  of  his  nature,  must  at  the  same 
time  be  fully  acknowledged.  "Only  it  might  perhaps 
be  premature,  on  the  score  of  this  latter  qualification, 
to  class  him  as  Arnold  (Hist.  Theol.  Myst.  Francof. 
1702,  p.  306)  has  done  with  the  precursors  of  the 
Bef ormation. "  Leopold  Ziegler  does  not  hesitate  to 
affirm  that  "The  German  Master  was  certainly  no 
Protestant  in  the  sense  of  the  Eef ormation.  "3  Inge 

'Bohmer,  Meister  Eckehart.     Damaris,  1869,  p.  89. 

2Ullmann,  Reformers  before  the  Reformation  II,  p.  29.  Trans,  by 
R.  Menzies.  Edinburgh,  1855. 

3Ziegler,  Die  philosophische  und  religiose  Bedeutung  des  Meister 
Eckehart.  Preussisches  Jahrbuch,  March,  1904,  vol.  115. 

108 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  109 

believes  that  the  hierarchy  and  its  reverence  for  the 
priesthood  had  no  significance  for  Eckehart ;  that  in  this 
as  in  other  ways  he  is  a  precursor  of  the  Keformation.4 
If  the  treatise,  "Swester  Katrei"  be  accepted  as  gen- 
uine, then  it  must  be  admitted  that  Eckehart 's  greater 
reverence  for  the  authority  of  a  simple  lay  person  in  mat- 
ters purely  spiritual  than  for  the  authority  of  the  teach- 
ing Church,  indicates  a  tendency  towards  a  universal 
priesthood.  ,But  "Swester  Katrei"  has  been  proved  to 
be  the  work  of  some  one  of  the  heretical  Beghards  and 
was  not  written  until  after  the  death  of  Meister  Eckehart. 
Lasson  asserts  that  Eckehart 's  doctrine  through  its 
ethics  paved  the  way  for  the  Keformation.5 

The  fundamental  principles  of  Protestantism  are  justi- 
fication by  faith  and  the  universal  priesthood  of  believ- 
ers. According  to  justification  by  faith,  the  sinner  reaches 
out  for  a  righteousness  which  is  complete  in  itself,  namely 
the  exterior  righteousness  of  Christ.  He  takes  it  with 
the  "arm  of  faith "  and  puts  it  on  as  a  cloak  of  grace. 
Hence  his  sins  are  not  really  forgiven,  they  are  only 
covered  over  with  this  cloak.  This  faith,  which  justifies, 
is  not  a  firm  belief  in  God's  revealed  truth  and  prom- 
ises, but  the  infallible  conviction  that  God,  for  the  sake 
of  Christ,  will  not  impute  to  us  our  sins,  but  will  con- 
sider and  treat  us  as  if  we  were  really  just  and  holy, 
although  in  our  inner  selves  we  remain  the  same  sinners 
we  were  before.  Hence  faith  alone  suffices  for  justifica- 
tion; neither  repentance  nor  penance,  neither  love  of 
God  nor  good  works  nor  any  virtue  is  required. 

In  direct  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  Eckehart  teaches 
that  God  does  not  justify  the  sinner  without  the  latter 's 
cooperation.  "He  demands  that  the  sinner  help  Him, 
for  He  will  not  sanctify  thee  without  thy  assistance.  "6 
Man  must  repent  of  his  sins  ;7  he  must  perform  works  of 


*Inge,  op.  cit,  p.  163. 

"Lasson,  German  Mysticism  in  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Cen- 
turies, tiberweg,  History  of  Philosophy,  I,  p.  484. 
•Pfeiffer,  216,  25;  200,  35. 
'Pfeiffer,  361,  13. 


110  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

penance  to  atone  for  them;8  he  must  exercise  himself  in 
the  love  of  God,9  in  virtue  and  in  good  works.10  He  dis- 
tinctly teaches  that  good  works  are  always  necessary11 
even  if  the  soul  has  advanced  far  in  the  way  of  perfec- 
tion. Their  value  depends  upon  the  intention  wherewith 
they  are  performed;  the  greater  the  love  that  prompts 
them,  the  greater  also  the  merit.  This  is  the  teaching 
of  the  Church,  and  it  is  a  proof  of  the  grossest  ignorance 
of  Catholic  doctrine  to  suggest  that  we  do  not  heed  the 
interior  disposition,  the  habitual  direction  of  the  per- 
sonal will,  but  attend  chiefly  to  exterior  performance 
of  the  work.  In  accordance  with  Catholic  doctrine,  Ecke- 
hart  likewise  teaches  that  it  is  sanctifying  grace  that  con- 
stitutes inner  righteousness  and  is  the  only  formal  cause 
of  our  sanctification.  "A  soul  in  the  state  of  grace 
is  pure  and  an  image  of  God."12  That  he  understands 
sanctifying  grace  as  a  habit  or  state  of  the  soul  is  proved 
by  the  following :  '  *  Grace  does  not  operate,  it  unites  us 
to  God";13  and  this  state  lasts  as  long  as  the  soul  is 
free  from  grievous  sin.  "Mortal  sin  is  the  death  of  all 
grace."14  Eckehart  considers  the  Passion  as  the  mer- 
itorious cause  of  grace  (Cf.  Ch.  VI),  for  he  says  that 
Our  Lord  merited  a  superabundance  of  grace,  more  than 
sufficient  to  redeem  the  whole  world.  And  finally,  he 
teaches  that  the  reception  of  the  sacraments  is  the 
instrumental  cause  of  grace.  He  frequently  refers  to 
the  seven  sacraments  as  "the  means  by  which  the  soul 
is  sanctified,"15  but  man  is  more  especially  sanctified 
through  the  Blessed  Eucharist.  "The  more  frequently 
thou  receivest  the  Holy  Eucharist,  the  better  and  more 
salutary  it  is  for  thee.  .  .  .  Now  thou  wouldst  object 


Tfeiffer,  29,  12;  22,  35. 
9Pfeiffer,  560,  38;  606,  31;   208    22. 
"Pfeiffer,  611,  11;  179,  1. 
'Pfeiffer,  607,  30;  19,  6. 
2Biittner,  op.  cit.,  p.  7. 
J3Ibid.,  p.  8. 
4Pfeiffer,  217,  22. 
"Pfeiffer,  328,  13. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  111 

that  thou  art  devoid  of  all  feeling,  and  art  indolent,  and 
dost  not  dare  approach  thy  Lord.  The  greater  need  thou 
hast  to  receive  thy  God,  for  He  will  sanctify  thee  and 
unite  thee  to  Himself,  for  this  sacrament  is  the  very 
source  and  fount  of  grace.  "16  Eckehart  has  written  an 
entire  treatise  on  the  advantages  of  the  Blessed 
Eucharist.17 

The  following  is  often  quoted  as  a  proof  that  Eckehart 
did  not  regard  the  sacraments  as  means  of  grace,  but 
instead  considered  them  an  obstacle  and  hindrance  to 
pure  spirituality.  "  Sacrament  means  an  exterior  sign. 
He  who  stops  at  the  exterior  sign  cannot  arrive  at  the 
inner  truth,  for  the  seven  means  of  grace  direct  us  to 
the  one  truth.  .  .  .  Some  good  people  are  an  obstacle  to 
themselves  by  insisting  too  much  on  contrition  and  con- 
fession, and  thus  they  dwell  on  the  exterior  sign  and  do 
not  bestir  themselves  to  reach  the  simple  truth. ' n8  Ecke- 
hart does  not  imply  that  we  must  refrain  from  using 
the  sacraments,  he  simply  wishes  to  say  that  we  must 
advance  from  the  external  opus  operatum  to  the  spiritual 
significance  and  effect  of  the  sacrament.  He  who  insists 
too  strongly  on  the  exterior  sign  stops  at  that  which 
appeals  to  the  senses ;  it  is  this  which  draws  us  away  from 
what  is  spiritual  and  so  distracts  us  that  we  cannot 
pray  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

The  whole  trend  of  Eckehart 's  doctrine,  when  judged 
impartially,  and  when  the  necessary  allowance  for  his 
obscure  and  somewhat  paradoxical  style  has  been  made, 
shows  that  he  was  neither  consciously  nor  unconsciously 
a  precursor  of  the  Protestant  Eef  ormation,  but  a  humble, 
loyal  son  of  his  mother,  the  Catholic  Church.  He  erred, 
it  is  true,  but  let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  in  his  public 
retractation  he  unconditionally  submitted  his  whole  doc- 
trinal system  to  the  infallible  authority  of  the  Church. 


"Pfeiffer,  565,  24. 
17Pfeiffer,  373. 
"Pfeiffer,  239,  5. 


APPENDIX 

THE"  CONDEMNED  ARTICLES 

1.  Interrogates  quandoque,  quare  deus  mundum  non 
prius  produxerit,  respondit  tune,  sicut  nunc,  quod  deus 
non  potuit  primo  producere  mundum,  quia  res  non  potest 
agere,  antequam  sit;  unde  quamcito  deus  fuit,  tamcito 
mundum  creavit. 

2.  Item  concedit  potest  mundum  fuisse  ab  eterno. 

3.  Item  simul  et  semel,  quando  deus  fuit,  quando  filium 
sibi  coeternum  per  omnia  coequalem  deum  genuit,  etiam 
mundum  creavit. 

4.  Item  in  omni  opere,  etiam  malo,  malo  inquam  tarn 
pene,    quam    culpe,    manifestatur    et    relucet    equaliter 
gloria  dei. 

5.  Item  vituperans  quempiam  vituperio  ipso  peccato 
vituperii  laudat  deum,  et  quo  plus  vituperat  et  gravius 
peccat,  amplius  deum  laudat. 

6.  Item  deum  ipsum  quis  blasphemando  deum  lauuat. 

7.  Item  quod  petens  hoc  aut  hoc  malum  petit  et  male, 
quia  negationem  boni  et  negationem  dei  petit,  et  orat 
deum  sibi  negari. 

8.  Qui  non  intendunt  res,  nee  honores,  nee  utilitatem, 
nee  devotionem  internam,  nee  sanctitatem,  nee  premium, 
nee  regnum  celorum,  sed  omnibus  Mis  renuntiaverunt, 
etiam  quod  suum  est,  in  illis  hominibus  honoratur  deus. 

9.  Ego  nuper  cogitavi,  utrum  ego  vellem  aliquid  reci- 
pere  a  deo  vel  desiderare:  ego  volo  de  hoc  valde  bene 
deliberare,  quia  ubi  ego  essem  accipiens  a  deo,  ibi  essem 
ego  sub  eo  vel  infra  eum,  sicut  unus  famulus  vel  servus, 
et  ipse  sicut  dominus  in  dando,  et  sic  non  debemus  esse  in 
eterna  vita. 

10.  Nos  transformamur  totaliter  in  deum  et  converti- 
mur  in  eum ;  simili  modo,  sicut  in  sacramento  panis  con- 
vertitur  in  corpus  Christi:  sic  ego  converter  in  eum, 
quod  ipse  me  operatur  suum  esse  unum,  non  simile ;  per 

112 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  113 

viventem  deum  verum  est,  quod  ibi  nulla  est  distinctio. 

11.  Quicquid  deus  pater  dedit  filio  suo  unigenito  in 
humana  natura,  hoc  totum  dedit  michi :  hie  nihil  excipio, 
nee  unionem  nee    sanctitatem,  sed    totum    dedit   michi 
sicut  sibi. 

12.  Quicquid  dicit  sacra  scriptura  de  Christo,  hoc  etiam 
totum  verificatur  de  omni  bono  et  divino  homine. 

13.  Quicquid  proprium  est  divine  nature,  hoc  totum 
proprium  est  homini  iusto  et  divino;  propter  hoc  iste 
homo  operatur  quicquid  deus  operatur,  et  creavit  una 
cum  deo  celum  et  terram,  et  est  generator  verbi  eterni, 
et  deus  sine  tali  homine  nesciret  quicquam  facere. 

14.  Bonus  homo  debet  sic  conf ormare  voluntatem  suam 
voluntati  divine,  quod  ipse  velit  quicquid  deus  vult :  quia 
deus  vult  aliquo  modo  me  peccasse,  nollem  ego,  quod  ego 
peccata  non  commisissem,  et  hee  est  vera  penitentia. 

15.  Si  homo  commisisset  mille  peccata  mortalia,  si  talis 
homo  esset  recte  dispositus,  non  deberet  velle  se  ea  non 
commisisse. 

16.  Deus  proprie  non  precipit  actum  exteriorem. 

17.  Actus  exterior  non  est  proprie  bonus  nee  divinus, 
nee  operatur  ipsum  deus  proprie  neque  parit. 

18.  Afferamus  fructum  actuum  non  exteriorum,  qui 
nos  bonos  non  f  aciunt,  sed  aetuum  interiorum,  quos  pater 
in  nobis  manens  facit  et  operatur. 

19.  Deus  animas  amat,  non  opus  extra. 

20.  Quod  bonus  homo  est  unigenitus  filius  dei. 

21.  Homo  nobilis  est  ille  unigenitus  filius  dei,  quern 
pater  eternaliter  genuit. 

22.  Pater  generat  me  suum  filium  et  eundem  filium. 
Quicquid  deus  operatur,  hoc  est  unum,  propter  hoc  gen- 
erat ipse  me  suum  filium  sine  omni  distinctione. 

23.  Deus  est  unus  omnibus  modis  et  secundum  omnem 
rationem,  ita  ut  in  ipso  non  sit  invenire  aliquam  multi- 
tudinem  in  intellectu  vel  extra  intellectum :  qui  enim  duo 
videt  vel  distinctionem  videt,  deum  non  videt,  deus  unus 
est  extra  numerum  et  supra  numerum,  nee  ponit  in  unum 


114  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

cum  aliquo.     Sequitur:    nulla  igitur  distinctio  in  ipso 
deo  esse  potest  aut  intelligi. 

24.  Omnis  distinctio  est  a  deo  aliena,  neque  in  natura 
neqne  in  personis ;  probatur :  quia  natura  ipsa  est  una  et 
hoc  unum,  et  quelibet  persona  est  una  et  id  ipsum  unum, 
quod  natura. 

25.  Cum  dicitur;  Simon  diligis  me  plus  hiis?    sensus 
est,  id  est,  plusquam  istos,  et  bene  quidem,  sed  non  per- 
fecte.     In  primo  enim  et  secundo  et  plus  et  minus  et 
gradus  est  et  ordo,  in  uno  autem  nee  gradus  est  nee  ordo. 
Qui  igitur  diligit  deum  plus  quam  proximum,  bene  quidem, 
sed  nondum  perfecte. 

26.  Omnes  creature  sunt  unum  purum  nichil :  non  dico, 
quod  sint  quid  modicum  vel  aliquid,  sed  quod  sint  unum 
purum  nichil. 

Objectum  preterea  extitit  dicto  Ekardo,  quod  predica- 
verat  alios  duos  articulos  sub  hiis  verbis : 

1.  Aliquid  est  in  anima,  quod  est  increatum  et  increa- 
bile;  si  tota  anima  esset  talis,  esset  increata  et  increa- 
bilis,  et  hoc  est  intellectus. 

2.  Quod  deus  non  est  bonus  neque  melior  neque  opti- 
mus ;  ita  male  dico,  quandocunque  voco  deum  bonum,  ac 
si  ego  album  vocarem  nigrum. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

AMES,  E.  S.     The  Psychology  of  Religious  Experience.     Boston,  1910. 
ARCELIN,  M.  A.    La  Dissociation  psychologique.     Revue  des  questions 

scientifiques,  October,  1900. 
AUGER.    Etudes  sur  les  mystiques  des  Pays-Bas  au  moyen  age.    Brussels, 

1892. 
BACH,    J.     Meister    Eckehart    der    Vater    der    deutschen    Speculation. 

Vienna,  1864. 

BAKER,  F.  A.    Sancta  Sophia.    London,  1876. 
BAUMKER.     Ein  Traktat   gegen  die  Amalricianer  aus   dem  XIII  Jahr- 

hundert.     Jahrbuch  fiir  Philosophic  und  spekulative  Theologie, 

1892  and  1893. 
BECH,   FEDOR.    Bruchstlicke  aus   Meister  Eckehart.    Germania  XV. 

1870. 

BENSON,  R.  H.    Mysticism  (Westminster  Lectures).    London,  1907. 
S.  BERNARD.    On  the  Love  of  God.    Translated  by  M.  and  C.  Patmore. 

London,  1884. 

Sur  les  Cantiques.     Translated  by  M.  A.  Ravelet.     Bar-le-Duc,  1870. 
BESSMER,  J.     Stigmatisation  und  Krankheitserscheinung.     Stimmen  aus 

Maria-Laach,  1905. 
Der  Einfluss  der  Phantasie  auf  Empfindung  und  Spontanbewegung. 

Stimmen  aus  Maria-Laach,  1905. 
BIRUNGER,  A.    Traktate  Meister  Eckeharts,  des  Monches  von  Heilbronn, 

Gebete.     Alemannia  HI.     1875. 
V.  BLOSIUS.     The  Sanctuary  of  the  Faithful  Soul.    Translated  by  F. 

Wilberforce.     London,  1905. 
BOHMER,  E.     Heinrich  Seuse.     Damaris,  1865. 
Meister  Eckehart.     Damaris,  1865. 
Nickolaus  von  Basel  und  Tauler.     Damaris,  1865. 
Bruchstiicke  aus  der  Sammlung  des  Freiherrn  von  Hardenberg.    3.  Reihe. 

Zeitschrift  fur  deutsche  Philologie  XIV.     1882. 
BUTTNER,  H.    Meister  Eckeharts  Schriften  und  Predigten  I.    Leipzig, 

1903. 

BONNIOT  DE.    Le  Miracle  et  ses  contrefac.ons.     Paris,  1886. 
CATHOLIC  ENCYCLOPEDIA.    New  York,  1913. 
CAUDRON.    Le  Fond  de  la  mystique.     Revue  du  Clerge  frangais.    June, 

1906. 

CAUSSADE,  J.     Progress  in  Prayer.     St.  Louis,  1904. 
CRUEL.  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Predigt  irn  Mittelalter.  Detmold,  1870. 
DALGAIRNS.     The  German  Mystics  of  the  Fourteenth  Century.    Dublin 

Review,  1858. 
DELACROIX,  H.    Essai  sur  le  mysticisme  speculatif   en  Allemagne  au 

quatorzieme  siecle.     Paris,  1899. 

Etudes  d'histoire  et  de  psychologic  du  mysticisme.     Paris,  1908. 
DENIFLE,   H.   S.     Aktenstiicke   zu   Meister  Eckeharts   Prozess.     Zeit- 
schrift fur  deutsches  Altertum  XXIX.     1885. 

115 


116  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

Akten  zum  Prozesse  Meister  Eckeharts.     Archiv  fiir  Literatur-  und 

Kirchengeschichte  des  Mittelalters  II.     Berlin,  1886. 
Das  Evangelium  aeternum  und  die  Commission  zu  Anagni.     Archiv 
fiir  Literatur-  und  Kirchengeschichte  des  Mittelalters  I.     Berlin, 
1885. 
Der  Gottesfreund  im  Oberland  und  Nickolaus  von  Basel.    Historisch- 

politische  Blatter,  1875. 
Die  Dichtungen  des  Gottesfreundes  im  Oberlande.     Zeitschrift  fllr 

deutsches  Altertum  XXIV.     1880. 

Die  Dichtungen  Rulman  Merswins.  Zeitschrift  fiir  deutsches  Alter- 
tum XXIV,  XXV.  1880,  1881. 

Die  Heimat  Meister  Eckeharts.     Archiv   flir  Literatur-  und   Kir- 
chengeschichte des  Mittelalters  V.     Berlin,  1888. 
Eine  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Mystik.     Historisch-politische  Blatter, 

1875. 

Die  Werke  der  hi.  Hildegardis  und  ihre   neuesten  Kritiker.     His- 
torisch-politische Blatter,  1875. 
Ein  letztes  Wort  liber  Seuses  Brief biichlein.    Zeitschrift  fiir  deutsches 

Altertum  XXI.     1877. 

Meister  Eckeharts  lateinische  Schriften  und  die  Grundanschauung 
seiner  Lehre.  Archiv  fiir  Literatur-  und  Kirchengeschichte  des 
Mittelalters  II.  Berlin,  1886. 

Pregers  Deutsche  Mystik.     Literaturzeitung  III.     1882.    No.  6. 
Quellen  zur  Gelehrtengeschichte  des  Predigerordens  im  13.  und  14. 

Jahrhundert.    Archiv  fiir  Literatur-  und  Kirchengeschichte  II. 
Ueber  die  Anfange  der  Predigtweise  der  deutschen  Mystiker.     Archiv 
fiir  Literatur-  und  Kirchengeschichte  des  Mittelatters  II.    Berlin, 
1886. 

Zu  Meister  Eckehart.    Zeitschrift  f iir  deutsches  Altertum  XXI.  1877. 
DEUTSCH,  S.     Eckehart.    Realencyclopedie  fiir  protestantische  Theologie 

und  Kirche  V. 

Dubray,  C.  A.    Introductory  Philosophy.    New  York,  1913. 
DUPONT,  L.     Vie  du  Pere  Balthasar  Alvarez.     Paris,  1846. 
EHRLE.    Die  Spiritualen  und  ihr  Verhaltnis  zum  Franziskanerorden  und 
zu  den  Fraticellen.    Archiv  fiir  Literatur-  und  Kirchengeschichte 
des  Mittelalters  1.     Berlin,  1885. 

ERDMANN,  J.  E.    Geschichte  der  Philosophic.     2  vols.     Berlin,  1878. 
'Epcovojuos.     Lex  Amandi.     Dolphin,  1905. 
S.  FRANCIS  DE  SALES.    Treatise  on  the  Love  of  God.    Translated  by  H. 

Mackey.    London,  1884. 
FRESENIUS.     Der  Versuch  einer  mystischen  Begriindung  der  Religion  und 

die  geschichtliche  Religion.     Marburg,  1912. 
GODFERNAUX,  A.     Sur  la  psychologic    du  mysticisme.     Revue  Philoso- 

phique  XXVII.     1902. 

GORRES.     Die  christliche  Mystik.     4  vols.     Regensburg,  1842. 
GRABMANN,  M.     Die  Lehre  des  hi.  Thomas  von  der  Scintilla  Animae  in 
ihrer  Betrachtung  fiir  die  deutsche  Mystik  im  Predigerorden. 
Jahrbuch  fur  Philosophic  und  spekulative  Theologie  XIV.     1900. 
GRANDMAISON,  L.    La  Religion  personelle.    Etudes  CXXXV. 
GREGOROVTUS.    Geschichte  der  Stadt  Roms  im  Mittelalter  v.    Stuttgart, 
1892. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  117 

GREITH,  C.     Die  Mystik  im  Prediger  Orden.     Freiburg,  1861. 

GROSS,  P.     De  Ekhardo  Philosopho.     Bonn,  1858. 

GROU.     Manuel  des  ames  interieures.     Paris,  1909. 

HAMMOND.  Nervous  Derangement,  Somnambulism,  Hypnotism,  Hysteria, 
Hysteroid  Affections.     New  York,  1881. 

HARNACK,  A.    Lehrbuch  der  Dogmen-Geschichte  III.     Freiburg,  1890. 

HAUPT.     Beitrage  zur  Literatur  der  deutschen  Mystik.     Wiener  Sitzungs- 
berichte,  1874,  1875,  1879. 

HEFELE.     Konziliengeschichte  II.    Freiburg,  1890.     6th  Ed. 
Die  Beghinen.     Wetzer  und  Welte,  Kirchenlexicon  I.     1847. 

HERGENROTHER.     Kirchengeschichte  II.     Freiburg,  1904. 

HILTON,  W.     The  Scale  of  Perfection.     London,  1901. 

HtiGEL  VON.     The  Mystical  Element  of  Religion.     2  vols.    London,  1909. 

INGE,  W.  R.     Christian  Mysticism.    New  York,  1899. 
Personal  Idealism  and  Mysticism.     New  York,  1907. 

JAMES,  W.    Varieties  of  Religious  Experience.    New  York,  1902. 

S.  JOHN  OF  THE  CROSS.     Works.     2  vols.    Translated  by  D.  Lewis.     Lon- 
don, 1891. 

JOLT,  H.     The  Psychology  of  the  Saints.    London,  1902. 

JONES,  R.     Studies  in  Mystical  Religion.    London,  1909. 

KEMPF.     Geschichte  des  deutschen  Reiches  wahrend  des  grossen  In- 
terregnums.    Wiirzburg,  1903. 

KOBER.     Die  Briider  des  freien  Geistes.     Wetzer  und  Welte,  Kirchen- 
lexicon II.     1848. 

KRAMM,  E.    Meister  Eckeharts  Terminologie.     Zeitschrift  fiir  deutsche 
Philologie,  1884. 

LACROEX,  P.     Science  and  Literature  of  the  Middle  Ages.    London,  1870. 

LAMBALLE,  E.     Mystical  Contemplation.    Translated  by  W.  H.  Mitchell. 
New  York,  1913. 

LANDAUER,  G.    Meister  Eckeharts  mystische  Schriften.     Berlin,  1903. 

LANGENBERG.     Forschungen    zur    Geschichte    der    deutschen    Mystik. 
Bonn,  1902. 

LASSON.    Zum  Text  des  Meister  Eckehart.     Zeitschrift  fiir  deutsche 
Philologie,  IX. 

LEIHER,  R.    Name  und  Begriff  der  Synteresis  in  der  mittelalterlichen 
Scholastik.     Philosophisches  Jahrbuch  XXV.     1912. 

LEUBA,  J.  H.    Les  Tendences  fondamentales  des  mystiques  chretiens. 

Revue  Philosophique,  July,  1902. 
A  Psychological  Study  of  Religion.    New  York,  1912. 
State  of  Mystical  Death.     American  Journal  of  Psychology,  1903. 
The  Psychology  of  the  Christian  Mystics.     Mind,  XIV.     1905. 

LEYSER,    H.     Deutsche   Predigten   des   XIII   und   XIV   Jahrhunderts. 
Quedlinburg,  1838. 

LICHTENBERGER,  H.     Le  Mysticisme  allemand.    Revue  des  Cours  et 
Conferences,  1910. 

LINSENMANN,  F.  X.    Der  ethische  Charakter  der  Lehre  Meister  Eckeharts. 
Tubingen,  1873. 


118  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

LINSENMAYER,  A.     Geschichte  der  Predigt  in  Deutschland  von  Karl  dem 

Grossen  bis  zum  Ausgang  des  Mittelalters.     Munchen,  1886. 
L— K,  J.     Die  Mystik.     Literarischer  Handweiser,  1911-1913. 
LOUISMET,  S.     Outlines  of  the  Doctrine  of  Mystical  Life.    The  American 

Catholic  Quarterly  Review,  July-October,  1915. 

McGiNLEY,  A.  A.    The  Love  of  the  Mystics.     Catholic  World,  LXIH. 
McSoRLEY,  J.     Hugh  of  St.  Victor.     Dolphin,  I.     1902. 
MAITLAND,  S.  R.     The  Dark  Ages.     London,  1890. 
MAHN,  P.     Die  Mystik  des  Angelus  Silesius.     Paderborn,  1892. 
MARECHAL,  J.     A  propos  du  sentiment  de  presence  chez  les  profanes  et 

chez  les  mystiques.     Revue  des    questions  scientifiques.     1908- 

1909. 
MAUFF,  B.  M.     Der  religionsphilosophische  Standpunkt  der  sogenannten 

Deutschen  Theologie  dargestellt  unter  vornehmlicher    Beriick- 

sichtigung  von  Meister  Eckehart.    Jena,  1890. 
MAUMIGNY,  R.    The  Practice  of  Mental  Prayer.    Translated  by  E. 

Mullan  S.  J.    New  York,  1914. 
MESCHLER,  M.    Jesuitenaszese  und  deutsche   Mystik.    Stimmen  aus 

Maria-Laach,  1912. 

"Dber  Visionen  und  Prophezeiungen.     Stimmen  aus  Maria-Laach,  XIV. 
MERX,   A.     Idee   und   Grundlinien   einer   allgemeinen   Geschichte   der 

Mystik.     Heidelberg,  1893. 
MICHAEL,  E.    Geschichte  des  deutschen  Volkes.    5  vols.    Freiburg,  1897- 

1911. 
MtiLLER,  A.     Die  Mystik  und   ihre  Bedeutung  fiir  die  Wissenschaft. 

Halle,  1889. 
O'CoNNELL,  J.     Practice  of  Mental  Prayer  and  of  Perfection.     4  vols. 

Bruges,  1910-1913. 
O'Dowo,W.B.   Mystic  Ecstasy  in  Relation  to  Modern  Science.    Dolphin, 

1903. 

PACHEU,  J.    Psychologic  des  mystiques.     Paris,  1901. 
PAHNCKE,    M.    Ein    Grundgedanke    der    deutschen    Predigt    Meister 

Eckeharts.     Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchengeschichte,  March,  1913. 
PEARSONS.     Meister  Eckehart,  the  Mystic.    Mind  XI.     1886. 
PELTZER.     Deutsche  Mystik  und  deutsche  Kunst.     Strasburg,  1899. 
PERRIER,  J.  L.     Revival  of  Scholastic  Philosophy.     New  York,  1909. 
PFEIFFER,  F.     Die  deutsche  Mystik.     2  vols.     Leipzig,  1845-1857. 

Predigten    und    Spriiche   der   Mystiker.     Zeitsehrift   fiir    deutsches 

Altertum,  VIII. 
PEIFFER,   X.     Psychologische    Lehren    der    Scholastik   bestattigt  und 

beleuchtet    durch    Tatsachen    der    katholisch-religiosen    Mystik. 

Zeitschrift  fur  Philosophic  und  spekulative  Kritik.     1898. 
PICA  VET,  F.     Essai  de  classification  des  mystiques.  Revue  Philosophique 

LXXIV.     1912. 
PLIIMACHER,   O.     Meister   Eckehart.     Zeitschrift   fiir   Philosophic   und 

spekulative  Kritik,  1888. 
POULAIN,  A.     Graces  of  Interior  Prayer.     Translated  by  L.  Y.  Smith. 

London,  1911. 
Les  Desiderata  de  la  mystique.     Etudes  LXXIV. 


MEISTER  ECKEHART  119 

PREGER,  W.    Meister  Eckehart.    Allgemeine  deutscbe  Biographic  V. 

1877. 
Meister  Eckeharts  Theosophie  und  deren  neueste  Darstellung.     Zeit- 

schrift  f  iir  lutherische  Theologie  und  Kirche,  1870. 
Geschichte  der  deutschen  Mystik.     3  vols.     Leipzig,  1874-1893. 
PRELLWITZ.    Meister  Eckeharts  Schriften  und  Predigten.     Preussisches 

Jahrbuch,  1904. 

PUMMERER,  A.  Der  gegenwartige  Stand  der  Eckehart-Forschung. 
Jahresbericht  des  Offentlichen  Privatgymnasiums  an  der  Stella 
Matutina  zu  Feldkirch,  1903. 

Seuses   Biichlein   der   Wahrheit   nach   formalen   Geschichtspunkten 
betrachtet.    Jahresbericht  des  Offentlichen  Bischoflichen  Gym- 
nasiums zu  Mariaschein,  1908. 
RficfijAC,  E.    Essay  on  the  Basis  of  Mystic  Knowledge.    Translated  by 

S.  C.  Upton.    New  York,  1879. 
REIFENRATH,  F.    Die  deutsche  Theologie  des  Frankfurter  Gottesfreundes. 

Halle,  1863. 
RIBET,  M.  J.    La  Mystique  divine  distinguee  des  contrefacpns  diaboliques 

et  des  analogies  humaines  I.    Paris,  1879. 

ROTTMANNER,  (P.  Odilo).     Die  lateinische  Schrift  Meister  Eckeharts  und 

die  Geschichte  der  Mystik.     Historisch-politische  Blatter.  1886. 

Die  neuere  Literatur  der  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Mystik.     Lite- 

rarischer  Rundschau,  June,  1884. 

ROUSSELOT,  P.  Les  Mystiques  Espagnols.  Paris,  1867. 
ROYCE,  J.  Studies  of  Good  and  Evil.  New  York,  1890. 
SCHILLER,  E.  Das  mystische  Leben  der  Ordensschwestern  zu  Toss. 

Zurich,  1903. 
SCHMIDT,  C.    Etudes  sur  le  mysticisme  allemand  au  XTV7e  siecle.  Memoi- 

res  de  1' Academic  des  sciences  morales  et  politiques  IE.    1847. 
SCHONBACH,   A.    Altdeutsche    Funde   aus    Innsbruck.    Zeitschrift   fUr 

deutsches  Altertum  XXXV.     1891. 
Predigtbruchstiicke.    Zeitschrift    fur    deutsches    Altertum    XXVII. 

1883. 

SCHRADER.    Angelus  Silesius  und  seine  Mystik.    Erfurt,  1853. 
SCOTT,  W.  M.     Aspects  of  Christian  Mysticism.     London,  1907. 
SHARPE,  A.  B.     Mysticism:  Its  True  Nature  and  Value.     London,  1910. 
SIEBECK,  H.     Noch  einmal  die  Synteresis.     Archiv  fiir  die  Geschichte  der 

Philosophic.     1897. 
SIEVERS.     Predigten  von  Meister  Eckehart.     Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches 

Altertum  XV.     1871. 

STEELE,  F.  M.   (Darley  Dale).    Jan  van  Ruysbroeck.    The  American 
Catholic  Quarterly  Review.     July,  1915. 

Meister  Eckehart.     The  Am.  Cath.  Quart.  Review.    January,  1915. 
Tauler.     The  Am.  Cath.  Quart.  Review.     April,  1915. 
Rulman  Merswin,  the  Mysterious  Friend  of  God.    Am.  Cath.  Quart. 

Review.     October,  1915. 

The  Life  and  Visions  of  St.  Hildegarde.     St.  Louis,  1915. 
STEINER,  R.    The  Mystics  of  the  Renaissance.     New  York,  1911. 


120  MEISTER  ECKEHART 

STERN.     Studien  liber  Mystik  und  Theosophie.     Jahresbericht  der  k.k. 

deutschen  Staats-Oberrealschule  in  Trautenau.     1911-1912. 
STOCKL,  A.  Geschichte  der  Philosophic  des  Mittelalters.    4  vols.    Mainz, 

1864-1866. 
STRAUCH.    Kleine    Beitrage    zur    Geschichte    der    deutschen    Mystik. 

Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches  Altertum  XXVII.     1883. 
Pregers  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Mystik  II.     Anzeiger  fiir  deutsches 

Altertum  und  Literatur  IX.     1883. 
B.  Suso,  H.     Oeuvres.     Paris,  1856. 
TAULER,  J.     Predigten.    Frankfurt,  1864. 
S.  TERESA.    Le  Chateau  de  1'ame.     Lyons,  1818. 
The  Autobiography.    New  York,  1911. 
The  Way  of  Perfection.    London,  1901. 
S.  THOMAS.     Summa  Theologica. 

THOROLD,  A.     Essay  in  Aid  of  a  Better  Appreciation  of  Catholic  Mysti- 
cism.    London,  1900. 

Thoughts  on  Mystical  Theology.     Catholic  World  XXIV. 
TIETZ,  J.     Die  Mystik  und  die  Reformation.     Zeitschrift  fiir  lutherische 

Theologie  und  Kirche.     1868-1869. 
TOULEMONT,  P.    Les  Revelations  privees  a  propos  de  quelques  ouvrages 

recents. 

TURNER,  W.  History  of  Philosophy.  Boston,  1903. 
ULLATHORNE.  The  Endowments  of  Man.  London. 
ULLMANN,  C.  Reformers  before  the  Reformation.  Translated  by  R. 

Menzies.    Edinburgh,  1855. 
UNDERBILL,  E.     Mysticism.    A  Study  in  the  Nature  and  Development 

of  Man's  Spiritual  Consciousness.    London,  1911. 
VOLKMANN,  W.    Der  Mystiker  Heinrich  Suso.     Duisburg,  1869. 
WULF  DE.     Scholasticism  Old  and  New.    New  York,  1907. 
ZIEGLER,  L.     Die  philosophische  und  religiose  Bedeutung  des  Meister 

Eckehart.    Preussisches  Jahrbuch.     1904. 
ZOCKLER,  0.    Petrus  von  Alcantara,  Teresa  von  Avila,  Johannes  vom 

Kreuz.     Zeitschrift  fur  lutherische  Theologie  und  Kirche.     1906. 


VITA 

The  writer  of  this  dissertation,  Sister  Odilia,  S.N.D. 
(Mary  Elizabeth  Funke),  was  born  in  Boston,  Massa- 
chusetts, on  January  2,  1866.  She  attended  the  schools 
of  the  Sisters  of  Notre  Dame  in  her  native  city  until 
July  15,  1882,  when  she  entered  the  novitiate  of  the  Sis- 
ters of  Notre  Dame  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  After  her  pro- 
fession she  taught  in  various  schools  of  the  Order  in 
Cincinnati,  Hamilton,  Philadelphia,  South  Boston,  and 
Holyoke;  since  November,  1900,  she  has  taught  German 
at  Trinity  College,  Washington,  D.  C.  She  obtained  the 
degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  1912  from  Trinity  College 
and  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  in  1913.  She  began 
graduate  work  in  1913,  attending  courses  in  History, 
Philosophy,  and  Psychology  under  Doctors  Weber, 
Turner,  and  Dubray. 


-V  i  '•-• 


LD  2lA-60m-3,'65 
(F2336slO)476B 


YC  31445 


